IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 701 of 2001 ----------------------------- CRA.7/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR SC.147/1995 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED --------------------- 1. SUNILKUMAR @ SUNI S/O SADASIVAN, NAMBIPARAMBIL PEEDIYOKKAPARAMBU, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY KODAMANGALAM KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE 2. BIJU S/O PARAMESWARAN, CHAVELIPADAM VEEDU, KODAMANGALAM KARA, PARAVUR VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.P.F.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, (THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVUR) REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, EKM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.701/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 ORDER Accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No. 147/1995 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur, are the petitioners in this Criminal Revision Petition. Accused 1 to 4 along with the 5th accused were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Trial Court found all of them guilty and sentenced them to undergo rigourous imprisonment for two years under Sections 143, 147 and 148 and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. The lower appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the 5th accused and also proceeded to set aside the conviction and sentence of accused 1 to 4 as well for the offence under Sections 143, 147 and 148 IPC Crl.R.P.701/2001 2 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were acquitted of the said charges. Appellate Court affirmed the conviction for the offence under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii) of the Code and sentence awarded to A1 to A4 for the offence under Sections 307 and 506(ii) were also confirmed. It is aggrieved thereby the present revision has been filed by A1 to A4. 2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A5 are alleged to have been formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked PW2 with sword, chopper, iron rod etc with an intention to cause them injury. PW2 along with PW1, was crossing the road at about 5.15 p.m on 21.5.1994 near Harijan Ex- training Industrial building. Accused 2 to 5 restrained PW2 and inflicted several cut injuries with sword and chopper and beat him with an iron pipe and wooden stick. When CWs1 and 3 interfered, A1 intimidated them by threatening that they will be killed if they interfere. PW2 was rushed to the Crl.R.P.701/2001 3 Government Hospital, North Paravur, and from there, he was removed to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. PW1 had accompanied PW2 and he gave the First Information Statement. This was after PW2 had been rushed to the Medical Trust hospital. PW3 is a resident of Kothamangalam. He is residing near the place of occurrence. PW3 had specifically deposed that A2 to A4 had surrounded PW2 and A2 and A3 had assaulted him with MO3. PW3 had also spoken that A4 had tried to inflict cut injury on the neck of PW2. PW2 had warded off the same with his hand. In the result, he suffered a deep cut injury on the hand. PW4, though not an eye witness to the incident, deposed that she saw a person lying wounded near the coconut tree at the scene of occurrence. PW5 had seen PWs1 and 2 going along the road, while he was sitting in a shop. He then heard a cry and saw A1 and A3 carrying sword and iron pipe running towards south. He was a witness to the recovery of an iron rod, by A3 at a place near the shop Crl.R.P.701/2001 4 of PW5. PW6 is the attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar. MO4, the spectacle, MO5, the bloodstained soil and Mos6 and 7, two pairs of chappals, were also taken into custody from the place of occurrence. Recovery was proved with the aid of PWs7 and 8. PW13, the Medical Officer, who had attended to PW2 on 21.2.1995 issued Ext.P8 wound certificate, in which the injuries of PW2 were noted. Altogether nine injuries were noted. He further opined that the injuries could have been by MOs4 to 5. 3. The trial Court appreciated the testimony of PWs1 to 3. PW1 was not only an eye witness but he had accompanied PW2 and he had tried to prevent the assault on PW2. PW3 is a natural witness, who was also an eye witness to the incident. He was also intimidated by the accused when he tried to prevent several persons attacking PW2. PW5, the neighbouring shop owner had seen PWs1 and 2 proceeding in front of the shop just Crl.R.P.701/2001 5 before the occurrence and had also seen A2 to A4 rushing away from the scene of occurrence. He was a witness to the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 4. I have gone through the evidence in detail and I have perused the judgments of the Courts below. I find that the Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence. Though the trial Court had convicted A5 also, the lower appellate court had rightly given him the benefit of doubt. Therefore, it was found that the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and they were acquitted of the said charges. But considering the nature of the injuries sustained by PW2 and the acceptable testimony of PWs1 and 3 as also PWs4 and 5 supported by the Medical evidence of the doctor, which is also substantially in conformity with the testimony of PW2 as regards the nature of the injuries sustained Crl.R.P.701/2001 6 by him, the conviction of accused 1 to 4 for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 506(2) of the Code is perfectly justified and warranted. PWs1 and 3 had spoken about the fact that the 4th accused had waived the sword stick aiming at the neck of PW2 and obviously if the injury had landed on the neck, it would have ended the life of PW2. The conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is therefore, warranted and justified. For all these reasons, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision. Conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him in the circumstances, is perfectly warranted and justified. Criminal Revision Petition is bereft of merit and hence dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs