IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 516 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ CRA.224/2001 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.64/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: -------------------------- 1. SHANMUGHAN, S/O. MARI, PUNTHALATHU HOUSE, PATTIKULAM, NANNIYODE. 2. HASSAN MUHAMMED, S/O. CHELLA RAWTHER, VEMBRA, VILAYODI. 3. SUDEVAN, S/O. PONNAN, ERADUCHALLA, NANNIYODE. 4. HANEEFA, S/O. HASSAN MUHAMMED, VEMBRA, VILAYODI. 5. KAMAL, S/O. CHELLA RAWTHER, NANNIYODE. 6. IBRAHIM, S/O. CHELLA RAWTHER, VEMBRA, NANNIYODE. 7. CHAMI, S/O. AANDY, KAVILATHU VEEDU, VILAYODI. 8. AYYAPAN, S/O. CHAMI, VEMBRA, VILAYODI. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE, PUDUNAGARAM IN CRIME NO.68/98, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.516 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners stand convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of different counts under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. The allegation against the accused were that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons such as sticks and in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the property of PW1, caused hurt to him with those dangerous weapons and that all these acts were committed as PW1 caused obstruction to the formation of a road by constructing a shed. 3. In support of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked. Accused persons pleaded innocence on examination under Section 313 Cr.PC. The court of first instance evaluated the entire evidence on Crl.RP.516/04 Page numbers record, independently dealt with the evidence tendered and concluded that the accused persons are liable to be convicted. The court of session confirmed the conviction and sentence and the appeal was dismissed accordingly. 4. On the basis of Ext.P1 F.I. Statement given by PW1, recorded in the Government Hospital, Chittur and Ext.P4 F.I.R. registered on its basis, the courts below noticed that the incident allegedly occurred at about 23.30 hours on 11.5.1998. The F.I.R. was registered at 9 A.M. in the following morning. Ext.P2 is the wound certificate, which discloses that the victim PW1 was examined by the doctor at 3.25 A.M. on 12.5.1998. MO1 series were recovered and Ext.P5 seizure mahazar was drawn up. The descriptions in Ext.P5 have been appreciated by the courts below to conclude that the recovered weapons viz. sticks, are very dangerous weapons, having regard to the injuries caused. 5. PW1 gave evidence in support of the case. He proved Ext.P1 F.I. statement and stated that the revision petitioners Crl.RP.516/04 Page numbers have no manner of right over the disputed land. His version was corroborated by that of his brother as PW2. PW4 stated that he saw the accused leaving the scene of occurrence and the injured PW1. He also stated that PW1 told him that the revision petitioners injured him. The police officials who conducted investigation gave evidence as PWs.6 and 7. PW2, the doctor who examined PW1, proved Ext.P2 wound certificate, which shows that PW1 had suffered linear contusion on the right side extending up to the side of the eye, tenderness of the left inner side of the palm and tenderness and swelling on the back of the occipital area. On analysis, the courts below rightly concluded that the medical evidence corroborated the version of PW1. The courts below were not ready to accept the defence version that PW3 could not have been believed because she is the sister of PW1 and hence interested in the prosecution. The lower appellate court found that there was no ground to disbelieve PW3, who has been believed by the court of first instance. Exts.D1 and D2 show that there were disputes between two of the appellants and the mother of DW1 with regard to the Crl.RP.516/04 Page numbers pathway and the civil court had found that they have a right of way. Assimilating the contents of Exts.D1 and D2, the lower appellate court has noticed that the right of private defence does not extent to voluntarily trespass into the possession of another and even if PW1 was in wrongful possession, the criminal trespass and hurt following the unlawful assembly warrants conviction and sentence. I do not find any ground to take a different view in the matter of conviction and sentence. In the result, the revision petition fails. The same is hence, dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.16/8.