IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1728 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO. 94/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT &SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.NO. 236/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJEEVAN, AGED 35, S/O. DAMODARAN, KARUMALA MURUPPEL, MUTHUPEZHUMKAL, ARUVAPPULAM. 2. ASOKAN, AGED 30, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KARUMALA HOUSE, MUTHUPEZHUMKAL, ARUVAPPULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.R.VINU RAJ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1728 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July 2011 ORDER Revision is directed against the conviction of petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, by the two courts below. 2. The trial Magistrate, on their conviction for the aforesaid offence, sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 and 354 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 447 IPC directing them to undergo such sentences concurrently. Though they were prosecuted for other offences under Section 452 and 324 IPC also, they were not found guilty of such offences and acquitted. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/accused have preferred this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the accused assailed the conviction entered against the accused urging that prosecution case as against them for the offences with which they were found guilty has not been proved by convincing, trustworthy and legal evidence. Delay in Crl.R.P No.1728/2011 - 2 - registering of the F.I.R over the incident, nonidentification of the accused, and nonproduction of the wound certificate are some of the grounds canvassed by the learned counsel, among others, to contend that the conviction of the accused, concurrently entered by the two courts below on the materials placed, is bad in law and not supported by legal evidence. 4. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below, it is seen, the incident involved in the case giving rise to the prosecution of these accused took place in broad daylight at about 2:30 P.M on 03-02-2005 and they are alleged to have assaulted PW1, PW2 and PW3 after committing criminal trespass over the residential building of PW1, the de facto complainant. PW2 is the daughter and PW3 the wife of PW1, and PW3 was then carrying. All of them sustained injuries by the assault and over tacts committed by these accused. The evidence of these witnesses over the incident and also the assault on their person, after committing trespass over their dwelling house, was supported by the evidence of two other witnesses, PW5 and PW6, close neighbours. Though the learned counsel for petitioners urged before me that there is material contradiction in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 with that of PW5 and PW6, having regard to the limited scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction, where a reappraisal of the evidence is permissible only when it is shown that Crl.R.P No.1728/2011 - 3 - the finding on fact made by the inferior court is perverse and it cannot be so recorded on the materials placed, I am unable to accept the challenge canvassed to assail the findings concurrently made by the two courts below to hold that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 corroborates the version of PW1 to PW3, the injured in the case. The judgment of the learned Magistrate would also reflect that during the course of the trial also the accused had intimidated PW5 and PW6, the witnesses who were produced by the prosecution to substantiate its case. No action by the court and the police as regards the complaint given by them over such incidents was taken is no ground to disbelieve their version that they had been intimidated by the accused. Anyhow, that is not a matter which can be given consideration in examining culpability of the accused in the offences with which they are charged. But, what transpired during the trial of the case cannot at all be ignored by a court of law. Challenges raised over the delay in registering the F.I.R, nonconducting of the identification of the accused etc. deserve to be examined on the proved facts of the case to examine whether it is detrimental to the merit of the prosecution case. Whether the delay in registering the F.I.R is fatal to the prosecution has to be appreciated not with a myopic view that in all cases delay would derail the case. I do not find from the judgments rendered by the Crl.R.P No.1728/2011 - 4 - courts below that any challenge on the ground of delay as to how it had affected the trustworthiness of the prosecution case was canvassed for by the accused. The trial Magistrate stated that nothing worth mentioning has been brought out in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 to discredit their version over the incident. It is further stated that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 amply corroborates their version. The finding entered so by the learned Magistrate, who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour and deportment of the witnesses, deserve considerable weight and it is not liable to be displaced unless and until it is shown that such finding is perverse. The appellate court, after reappraisal of the evidence, has concurred with the finding of guilt, accepting the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and also PW5 and PW6, the witnesses examined by the prosecution to sustain its case as credible and trustworthy. When such be the case, I find, no interference with the conviction of the accused for the offences with which they were found guilty and convicted is called for in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge