IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1698 of 2002() ------------------------------------- CRA.111/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.43/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O. KURIAN, CHALANIKUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, VYALA KARA, ELACKADU. 2. JOY, S/O. FRANCIS, KALLUPURAYIL HOUSE, VAYALA KARA, ELACKADU. BY ADVS. MR.GEORGE BOBAN MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.9090/2002 IN CRRP. NO.1698/2002 DISMISSED 25/03/2010 SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioners were prosecuted by the Station House Officer, Marangattupally for offence under Section 353 and 506(1) read with 34 IPC with an allegation that at 3.00 pm. On 1.8.1995, while Pw1 Neelakantan was working as a Village Officer at Marangattupally, the revision petitioners approached him for a certificate of residence in respect of the first revision petitioner. Pw1 asked the first revision petitioner to produce ration card or tax receipt in proof of the factum of residence. The revision petitioners got infuriated and insisted for issuing certificate without any proof for which Pw1 was not amenable. Thereupon the revision petitioners criminally intimidated with death and the 2nd revision petitioner caught hold at the neck of Pw1 and fisted at his chest. The first revision petitioner hit Pw1 at his back with a paper weight. Both of Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. -: 2 :- them assaulted and intimidated Pw1 with intent to deter Pw1 from discharging his official duty as a public servant. 2. Soon after the incident, Pw1 rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Pala and got admitted there. Intimation was sent to Marangattupalli Police Station from the Primary Health Centre, Pala. A Head Constable attached to the above police station visited the Primary Health Centre and recorded Ext.P1 first information statement given by Pw1 at 6.30 pm. on the same day. On the basis of Ext.P1, a case as Crime No.66/95 was registered for offence under Sec.353 and 506(1) read with 34 IPC. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the revision petitioners for the above said offences. 3. The revision petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution Pws.1 to 11 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding of guilty. Consequently, each Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. -: 3 :- of them were sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,500/- each for offence under Sec.353 and 506(1) r/w.Sec.34 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months each. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioners preferred Crl.Appeal No.111/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The Addl.Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 5.8.2002 arrived a finding that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient enough to find the revision petitioners guilty for offence under Sec.506(1) r/w.34 IPC. Whereas, there is sufficient evidence to convict the revision petitioners for offence under Sec.353 r/w.Sec.34 IPC. Consequently, the conviction and sentence for offences under Sec.506(1) r/w.Sec.34 IPC were set aside and the conviction and sentence for offence under Sec.353 r/w.Sec.34 IPC was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence under Sec.353 r/w.34 IPC as Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. -: 4 :- confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 5. In support of the prosecution case, there is only the oral testimony of Pw1 through which I was taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The evidence of Pw1 is corroborated with Ext.P1 first information statement. The courts below had given reliance to the evidence of Pw1 to arrive at a conclusion that the revision petitioners assaulted Pw1, whose status as public servant was not disputed, with intent to deter him from discharge of official duties and are guilty for offence under Sec.353(1) r/w.34 IPC. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Pw1 had stated that on his way to the Primary Health Centre he went to the police station and filed a written complaint. But that was not brought in evidence. In the above circumstance, Ext.P1 is the second complaint and in the absence of the first complaint, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of Pw1 is not at all believable. It is also argued that because of the after- Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. -: 5 :- thought the case might have been developed and that there was a counter-case against Pw1 for assaulting the revision petitioners. However, it is seen that there is nothing to conclude that any charge sheet was filed against Pw1 for assaulting revision petitioners for any offence. Adding to that the revision petitioners didn't care to seek a simultaneous trial of the counter case, if any. In the above circumstance, it is not at all justified to interfere with the conviction and sentence on the basis of the allegation that there was a counter case. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel that there was a written complaint earlier, I had a careful scrutiny and analysis of the evidence. In fact there is little material to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to show that Pw1 had got any axe to grind against the revision petitioners to implicate them with an offence like the one on hand. It was also brought out that the second revision petitioner was the then Panchayat Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. -: 6 :- President. In the normal course, if the second revision petitioner was not involved with the offence alleged, Pw1 would not have implicated the second revision petitioner who was the then Panchayat President. The courts below have on an analysis of evidence on record arrived a finding of fact regarding the assault of Pw1 at his office with intention to deter Pw1 from discharging his official duties as a public servant. I find little reason to interfere with the finding of facts. Thought it is revealed by the evidence of Pw1, that he had been to the police with a written complaint, Station House Officer was not present. It was entrusted to some police personnel. He had not registered a case. It is not a reason to disbelieve Pw1, with the evidence available. Ext.P1 statement, which exactly corroborate with the evidence of Pw1 was recorded within 3 ½ hours. There is no delay in giving statement. There is nothing to show that there was any false implication. There is no illegality or impropriety or error in the appreciation of Crl.R.P.No.1698 of 2002. -: 7 :- evidence by the appellate court. The sentence awarded is only a fine, which I am not inclined to interfere with. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-