IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2494 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.510/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM, CC.NO.1167/2003 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT 1 TO 5/ACCUSED 1, 3, 5, 6 & 7: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. AMBU, S/O.KOCHU NARAYANAN, NJARAVILA VADAKKATHIL, (KC IX/98), ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. 2. RAJU, S/O.KUNJU PANICKAR, NJARAVILA VADAKKATHIL, (KC IX/100),ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. 3. PRAMOD, KUNJU PANICKAR, NJARAVILA VADAKKATHIL, (KC IX/100),ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. 4. AJI, S/O.ANANDAN, PUNTALAVILA PADINJATTATHIL, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. 5. RAJI, S/O.ANANDAN, PUNTALAVILA PADINJATTATHIL, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.PREMCHAND R.NAIR, MR.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM, MR.BEPIN PAUL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. CRL.R.P. NO. 2494/2009-B: *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO IMPLEADED: 2. BABU, S/O. DIVAKARAN, HOUSE NO.117, MAHATMA GANDHI COLONY, ULIYAKOVIL CHERI, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. MURUGAN, S/O. KUTTAN, MAHATMA GANDHI COLONY, ULIYAKOVIL CHERI, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. RAGHU, S/O. KUTTAN, MAHATMA GANDHI COLONY, ULIYAKOVIL CHERI, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 AS PER ORDER DT. 14/10/09 IN CRL.M.A. 9977/09. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, ADDL.R2 TO R4 BY ADV.MR.K.I.TOGI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2494 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1,3,5,6 and 7 in C.C.No.1167 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kottarakkara. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam East Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.166/2002 against the revision petitioners along with accused Nos.2 and 4 alleging offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 342, 323, 324 of I.P.C. with an allegation that on 7.30p.m. on 7/3/2002, the revision petitioner formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object and being the members of an unlawful assembly they were armed with deadly weapons like dragger and wrongfully confined respondents 2,3 and 4 and they were inflicted injuries. After trial, the learned Magistrate arrived a finding that the prosecution had not succeeded to establish the offence alleged against accused Nos.2 and 4. Consequently they were acquitted. Revision petitioners were found guilty under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 324 and Crl.R.P.No.2494 of 2009 2 they were sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months each for offence under section 143 I.PC., simple imprisonment for six months each for offences under Sections.147, 148, 342 and 323 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to pay Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, they preferred appeal as Crl.appeal No.510 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge, Kollam by judgment dated 15/6/2009 dismissed the appeal. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard either side, I find that the courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a conclusion of guilty and I find that the conviction impugned is unassailable. 4. Now that the revision petitioner had settled the matter along with additional respondents 2, 3 & 4 who are the defacto complainant and filed a deed of settlement. In the light of the settlement arrived between the parties and taking note of Crl.R.P.No.2494 of 2009 3 the nature of the offences, I find that it would be appropriate to release the petitioner after due admonition. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part, while confirming the conviction the revision petitioners are released with due admonition. The fine amount if any deposited shall be refunded to the revision petitioner. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.