IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3001 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.229/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR SC.134/1998 of PR. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED: --------------------- BASHEER, S/O.SYED, VAIPPINKATTIL, CHALINGADU, KAIPAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3001 OF 2003 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Revision petitioner is the 1st accused in Sessions Case No.134/98 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Iringalakuda. He was prosecuted by the Station House Officer, Mathilakam Police Station in Crime No.108/91 alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with 149 IPC along with six others. Since accused Nos. 2 to 7 were absconding, the case against them was split up and the appellant alone was tried. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 16 were examined. Exts.P1 to P11, D1 to D8 and MOs 1 to 8 were marked. The appellant took a plea of total denial. No defence evidence was let in other than Exts.D1 to D8 marked during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge arrived at a finding of guilt. Consequently, the appellant was convicted; and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 read with 149 IPC. For offences under Sections 323 and 148 IPC, he was Crl.R.P.No.3001/2003 2 sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively. No separate sentence was awarded for other offences. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No.229/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur. It was made over to Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, who, by the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2003 confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition is filed. 2. I have heard Adv. Sri.V.C.Sarath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Noushad Thottathil, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned and the evidence on record. 3. The brief case of the prosecution is that at 10.30 a.m. , on 22.5.1991, the appellant and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and being members of the unlawful assembly, they were armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, iron pipes, axe etc. in front of house No. VIII/5 of the Crl.R.P.No.3001/2003 3 Kaipamangalam Panchayat. In furtherance of their common object they assaulted PW2. Though PW2 ran away from the spot and took shelter inside a motor shed near the house of one Moideenkoya, he was dragged out of the motor shed and was beaten with iron pipes by 2nd and 4th accused. As a result, he fell down. Thereupon, the 7th accused inflicted cut injuries on his left leg with an axe. The 3rd accused beat him with an iron rod. The appellant, who is the 1st accused, kicked him at his chest. As a result of the assault, PW2 sustained severe injuries. According to the prosecution, the common object of the appellant and others was nothing but to commit murder of PW2. 4. PW2 was taken to the primary Health Centre, Perinjanam, where PW7 was the Assistant Surgeon. Ext.P5 is the wound certificate. Ext.P5 and the evidence of PW7 would show that PW2 had sustained the following injuries. “1) Injury on the scalp about 1cm in size. 2) Multiple abrasion on both legs and also contusion. 3) Injury on the left leg upper part, left knee joint on the lateral part Crl.R.P.No.3001/2003 4 and wound is about 4x3 cm in size and involvement of knee joint. 4) Small wound about 1cm in size on the right leg lower part. 5) Small wound about ½ cm in size on the left foot. 6) Small swelling and contusion on the left forearm of Bandage and sling done. Suspecting fracture of both bones of left forearm. 7) Contusion on the right thigh. 8) Suspecting head injury.” The cause of injury was also stated to PW7 and it is recorded in Ext.P5. That would corroborate with the prosecution case. 5. In support of the prosecution case, there is testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 9. PW1 had deposed that while he was going along with PWs 2, 9 and others, the appellant and other assailants chased them and that PW2 took shelter in a motor shed near the house of Moideenkoya, from there PW2 was dragged out and assaulted by the appellant and others. A2 to A5 beat PW2 with iron rod. The 7th accused inflicted cut injury with an axe. The appellant kicked at the chest of PW2. It was also deposed that while PW1 and others lifting PW2 to the hospital Crl.R.P.No.3001/2003 5 the appellant pelted stones at them. The evidence of PW2 also would corroborate with the evidence of PW1. PW9, yet another independent witness had also given evidence corroborating with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The Assistant Sessions Judge as well as the Additional Sessions Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence. In fact, there is no material disclosed to disbelieve PWs 1, 2 and 9 which is corroborated by Ext.P5 wound certificate and the injuries mentioned earlier. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I find little reason to come to a conclusion that either the trial Judge or the appellate Judge had any way gone erred in appreciating the evidence. The evidence available was well considered and discussed in detail by the trial court as well as by the appellate Judge. I find no error, illegality or impropriety. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner could not point out any reason to reject the above evidence which were found creditworthy by the courts below. Therefore, I find that the conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. Crl.R.P.No.3001/2003 6 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for leniency in sentence. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the revision petitioner had been suffering the trauma of the prosecution for the last 21 years. Going by the records, it is seen that the prosecution had not contributed anything to delay the trial. It is evident that the absconding of the other accused had in fact delayed the trial. There was no much delay in appeal. In this Court there is much delay. The Revision Petition has been pending here for the last eight years. Having due regard to the nature of the offence, I find that the sentence awarded by the trial court is neither harsh nor disproportionate. In the above circumstance, I find that for the delay in disposal of this revision any interference is warranted in the sentence. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. The trial court shall see the execution of the sentence and report compliance. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/3/11