IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1962 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.229/2006 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (ADHOC)FAST TRACK NO-II, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.136/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA ................................................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MADHUKUMAR, S/O.VASU PILLAI, VADAKKEDATHU ADIMURACKAL HOUSE, PULIMUKKU, THIRUVALLA TALUK, THOTTAPUZHASHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1962 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of June 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.II, Pathanamthita in Crl. Appeal No.229/2006 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under Secs.447, 323, 324 of Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). 2. Petitioner (Accused No.1) along with two others was chargesheeted for the said offences for allegedly trespassing into the house of PW2 on 07/01/04 at about 2 p.m with stick, stone, a bottle of acid and voluntarily causing hurt to P.W.s 1 t 3. P.W.s 1 to 3 were beat with stick, pelted with stone and acid poured on them. According to the prosecution petitioner beat PW3 on the left arm with stick and he pull down PW2. Accused No.2 poured acid on PW1. When PW1 resisted, acid fell on PWs 1 and 3. Accused No.3 pelted stone, which caused injury to PW3 below the knee. Since accused No.2 was not available, case against him was refiled. Accused No.3 was acquitted of the charges against him. Petitioner was found guilty and convicted for offences under secs.447, 323 and 324 r/w secs.34 of the Code. Crl.R.P.No.1962/09 2 Appellate court confirmed his conviction and sentence. Learned counsel contended that conviction is illegal and sentence imposed is excessive. 3. I have gone through the judgments under challenge. That on the relevant day and time P.Ws 1 to 3 sustained injuries is proved by the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, 5 and Ext.P2 to P4. Learned magistrate has extracted the nature of the injuries suffered by PWs 1 to 3 in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Injuries involve acid burn as well. 4. As regards the alleged incident PWs1 to 3 gave evidence. They supported the prosecution and identified the petitioner. MO 1 series are the pieces of glass seized from the scene of incident. PWs 4 to 7 are witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident. They rushed into the house of PW1 on the relevant day and time and found four persons running away from the house of PW1. They did not identify the assailants. They did not fully support the prosecution. 5. Evidence of PW1 to 3 is corroborated by Ext.P2 to Ext.P4 and to some extent, by the evidence of PWs 4 to 7 also. Courts below found that petitioner in furtherance of his common intention with Crl.R.P.No.1962/09 3 accused No.2 committed the offences. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. On going through the judgments under challenge and hearing the learned counsel I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction of petitioner. 6. In the matter of sentence learned counsel made a fervant plea. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the case of prosecution, it was accused No.2 who had poured acid on PWs 1 to 3. 7. I gave an anxious consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is true that the injuries suffered by PWs 1 to 3 including acid burns are not much serious. But it has to be borne in mind that corrosive substances was taken by the accused while they trespassed to the house of PW1, certainly with the intention to pour the same on PW1 and others. I am inclined to think that it was the result of predetermination. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that sentence awarded to the petitioner is legal and proper and required no interference. Resultantly this revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/