IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1026 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.92/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM DIVISION CC.306/1992 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S):APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5:- --------------------- 1) SANTHOSH, S/O. BHASKARAN, KADALITHARA VEEDU, IDAYAZHAM KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE. 2) NANAPPAN, S/O.PAPPI, KOYICHALCHIRA VEEDU, KUMARAKOM KARA KUMARKOM VILLAGE. 3) SANTHOSH, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, THULUSSERIL VEEDU, IDAYAZHAM KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE. 4) MOHANAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, MURIYANIKUNNEL VEEDU, IDAYAZHAM KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE. 5) PRAKASAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, MOONNADITHARA VEEDU, IDAYAZHAM KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY P.P. SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Crl.R.P. No. 1026 of 2001 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the17th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in C.C.No. 306 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom and the appellants in Crl.A.No.92 of 1996 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, Kottayam Division. They were convicted by the trial court by judgment dated March 25, 1996 under sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred to as “the PDPP Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under sections 148 and 332 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 3(1) of the PDPPAct. No separate sentence was awarded for the offences punishable under sections 143 and 147 IPC. On appeal by the accused persons, the lower appellate court confirmed their Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 2 conviction and sentence by judgment dated June 28, 2001. The accused have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution, as shaped in evidence before the trial court, in brief, is this:- PW9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom. On December 8, 1991 he along with others were on patrol duty and at about 9.15 p.m. in the night they reached the road near Toddy Shop No.13 situated in Idayazham. When the jeep came near the toddy shop, some persons from the compound of the toddy shop pelted stones breaking the front wind screen glass of the jeep. PW9 has also sustained injuries on his head. They stopped the jeep and chased the persons who pelted stones and found them to be accused 1 to 5. They arrested the accused persons on the spot, took them to the police station and registered the case. Ext.P4 is the Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 3 F.I.R. PW10, the then Circle Inspector of Police, conducted the investigation and laid the charge before the trial court. 3. The accused persons, on appearance before the trial court, pleaded not guilty to the charge under sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3(1) of the PDPP Act. 4. PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 and MOs.I and II were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, the accused persons denied their complicity in the case. No defence evidence was adduced. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3(1) of the PDPP Act, convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as aforesaid. On appeal by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming their conviction and sentence. The Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 4 accused persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:- 1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioners under sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act can be sustained? 2) Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is excessive or unduly harsh ? 8. Point No.1:- PWs.1 to 3 Police Constables and PW9 the Sub Inspector of Police testified in a convincing manner regarding the incident before the trial court. They categorically stated that when they reached near the toddy shop, somebody from the compound of the toddy shop pelted stones on them and that they chased them, caught hold of them and found that they are the accused persons. PW9 have also Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 5 sustained injury on his head as described in Ext.P1 wound certificate. Nothing was brought out during their cross-examination to discredit their evidence. 9. The counsel for the revision petitioner argued that as PWs.1 to 3 and 9 are official witnesses, their evidence should not be accepted. I am not inclined to agree. I have gone through their evidence. No serious discrepancies or inconsistencies were brought out during their cross-examination. They have absolutely no enmity towards the accused persons to falsely implicate them. Therefore, in my view, the trial court and the lower appellate court are justified in believing their evidence and finding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case. Therefore, I confirm their conviction under sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3(1) of the PDPP Act. 10. As regards the sentence, the trial court has imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 6 months each under sections 148 and 332 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 3(1) of the PDPP Act, which were confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. Taking into consideration the fact that the incident happened on December 8, 1991 and that the loss caused was to the tune of Rs.8,000/-, I feel that the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court can be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused persons i.e., from 9-12-1991 to 13-12-1991 for the offences punishable under sections 148 and 332 IPC and section 3(1) of the PDPP Act and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each under each count would meet the ends of justice. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioners under sections 143, 147, 148 and 332 read with section 149 IPC and section 3(1) of the PDPP Act rendered by the trial court which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 7 is upheld. The substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is reduced to imprisonment already undergone by the accused persons from 9-12-1991 to 13-12-1991. They are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under each count i.e., under sections 148 and 332 IPC and section 3(1) of the PDPP Act (total Rs.15,000/- each), in default to under go simple imprisonment for two months each under each count. Their bail bonds are cancelled. Two months’ time is granted for payment of the fine. No separate sentences are awarded under sections 143 and 147 IPC. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn Crl.R.P. 1026/2001 8 P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Crl.R.P. No. 1026 of 2001 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ O R D E R 17-10-2011