IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2338 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.369/2007 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.195/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PEERUMEDU .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSEDS ---------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW ALIAS SABU, S/O.VARGHESE, ENAMATTOM VEEDU, KIZHAKKECHEMMANU BHAGOM, CHEMMANNU KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. 2. SEBASTIAN ALIAS KUNJUMON, S/O.FRANCIS, KEEZHPURAM VEEDU, KIZHAKKECHEMMANU BHAGOM, CHEMMANNU KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. 3. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS TOMY, S/O.JOSEPH, MATTATHIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKECHEMMANU BHAGOM, CHEMMANNU KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2338 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners along with accused No.1 faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Peerumade in C.C.No.195 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 506(i), 427 and 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 26.12.2003 at about 7 p.m. petitioners along with accused No.1 in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the courtyard and sit out of PW 1 in violation of the order of injunction passed by the civil court, criminally intimidated him and committed mischief by causing damage to the chairs and teapoy kept in the sit out. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and proved Exts.P1 to P4. Learned magistrate found that accused No.1 has not committed any offence and acquitted him. Petitioners were found guilty of all offences other than Section 188 of the Code. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for various periods and payment of fine. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence. It is contended that conviction and sentence are not legal and proper. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no reliable evidence to show that any such incident occurred. Even the mahazar for scene of occurrence has not been adverted to by the learned magistrate. Crl.R.P.No.2338/2009 2 3. Regarding the incident PW 1, defacto complainant has given evidence. His evidence is that petitioners on the relevant day, time and place came to his courtyard and then entered the sit out, criminally intimidated him and destroyed the chairs and teapoy kept in the sit out. PW2, wife of PW1 also gave similar evidence. PW3 is a neighbour. He was cited to prove the alleged incident. But he only stated that he heard commotion from the scene of occurrence, came there and saw broken chairs in the sit out. Ext.P3, mahazar for scene of occurrence (a copy of which learned counsel made available for my perusal) also states about the damage caused to the chairs and teapoy belonging to PW1. Contention is that there is no corroboration for the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Learned counsel states that PW1 is a convict in a criminal case. 4. That, PW1 is a one time convict in a criminal case the nature of which is not in evidence is not by itself sufficient to reject his evidence. Alleged incident occurred in his courtyard and sit out. PW2, wife of PW1 has also gave the same evidence as PW1. Though PW3 had not supported the prosecution in full, his evidence also show that there was some incident in the courtyard and sit out of PW1 and in that, chairs and teapoy belonging to PW1 were damaged. On hearing learned counsel and going through the judgments under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction. 5. For offence punishable under Section 427 of the Code, a sentence Crl.R.P.No.2338/2009 3 of fine has been imposed on petitioners which does not require interference. For offence under Section 448 of the Code, simple imprisonment for three months each has been awarded and for offence under Section 506(i) of the Code, simple imprisonment for one month each has been awarded. It is not disputed that petitioners and PWs 1 and 2 are neighbours. It would appear that there was some civil dispute between the parties. Considering these circumstances and the nature of offences committed I am satisfied that a sentence of fine of Rs.500/- each on each of the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506(i) of the Code is sufficient in the ends of justice. It is directed that out of fine if realized Rs.1,000/- will be paid to PW1 as compensation. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: i. Sentence imposed on petitioners for offence punishable under Section 448 of the Code is modified as fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. ii. Sentence imposed on petitioners for offence punishable under Section 506(i) of the Code is modified as fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Crl.R.P.No.2338/2009 4 iii. Sentence awarded to petitioners for offence punishable under Section 427 of the Code is retained. iv. It is directed that out of the fine if realized Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) shall be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are granted two months’ time from today to deposit fine as aforesaid in the trial court. In case of failure, petitioners shall appear in the trial court on 24.9.2009 to receive the default sentence. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks