IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1355 of 2001(A) ----------------------------------------- CRA.106/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.641/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- MOHAMMED SHAMEEM, S/O. PAREETHU KANNU, AMEENA VEEDU, MATHUMOOLA BHAGOM, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. M. KAMAPPAU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P. No. 1355/2001 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO. 6422/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 1355/2001 DISMISSED. SD/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE 29/09/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 1355 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R On a charge of commission of offences punishable under Sections 225 B and 332 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as the Code), revision petitioner faced trial in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry, was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 months under Section 225 B and R.I. for one year under Section 332 . He preferred appeal to the Sessions Court but got relief only in the matter of sentence by getting it reduced to R.I for 3 months each. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments of the court below he has come up in revision. 2. Heard. Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that there is no evidence to show that revision petitioner committed any offence as alleged. According to learned counsel, under a mistake impression that revision petitioner was the person who used to tease the students of nearby womens' college, he was taken into custody and assaulted and to avoid consequence, he was falsely implicated. Public prosecutor CRL.R.P.No. 1355 / 2001 2 submitted that there is sufficient evidence to prove the incident. 3. Case is that on 16/071993 at about 9.45 A.M while PW11, Sub Inspector was on official duty at the place of occurrence, revision petitioner came there and questioned him. PW11 wanted to avoid revision petitioner but he persisted in questioning the conduct of PW11 and ultimately assaulted PW11. Name plate worn by PW11 was broken. PW11 arrested the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner attempted to escape from the custody of PW11. He was taken to the police station and with remand report, produced before learned Magistrate. PW10, Circle Inspector investigated the case and submitted final report. PWs 1 to 4 are witness to the alleged incident. But they refused to support the prosecution. PWs 6 and 9 are head constable and station driver of the police station and claimed that they were on official duty near the place of occurrence. On getting information about the incident they reached the scene of occurrence and found revision petitioner detained by PW11. In cross examination PW6 stated that he had seen revision petitioner engaged in scuffle with PW11. PW11 stated about the incident. According to PW10, he had CRL.R.P.No. 1355 / 2001 3 seized as per Exhibit P3, the uniform and broken pieces of name plate and other things worn by PW11 at the time of incident. Since the uniform was in constant use of PW11, same was returned to him. Broken pieces of name plate were produced in court. PW5 examined PW11 on 16/07/1993 at about 10 A.M. and issued Exhibit P1. Evidence of PW5and Exhibit P1 show that PW11 sustained abrasions and contusion. PW5 stated that if there was any specific damage to the uniform of PW11, he would have noted that in Exhibit P1. He had not seen any such damage. PW11 was in uniform at the time of examination by PW5. 4. Learned counsel submitted that Exhibit P1 and the evidence of PW5 would indicate that there was no damage to uniform. Counsel also submitted that there is no reliable evidence regarding the alleged incident. 5. Even if PWs 1 to 4 have not given evidence regarding the alleged incident, there is the evidence of PW11 which gets corroboration from PWs 6 and 9 and Exhibit P1 which shows that PW11 had sustained injuries. That PW11 was on duty at the relevant CRL.R.P.No. 1355 / 2001 4 time is proved by the evidence of PWs 6, 9 and 11. That PW5 had also seen PW11 in uniform at the time of examination immediately after the incident corroborated the evidence of PWs 6,9 and 11. Thus, prosecution has successfully proved that revision petitioner committed the offence as alleged. There is little reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below or the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 225B and Section 332 of the Code. 6. Learned counsel requested for leniency in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner was aged about 30 years at the time of incident. It is also submitted that the revision petitioner has been suffering from Schizophrenia. 7. A regards illness stated by the learned counsel, I do not find any evidence but considering the age of the revision petitioner at the time of incident and that almost 15 years have elapsed after the incident, I am inclined to think that sentence of fine is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Hence, sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as a fine of Rs.1,500/- each. Revision petition is therefore, allowed in part. Sentence imposed CRL.R.P.No. 1355 / 2001 5 on the revision petitioner is modified as a fine of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) each and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Bail bond is cancelled. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm