IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 496 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.77/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK), ALAPPUZHA CC.209/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- THILAKAN, CHAKKANATTU VELI VEEDU, WARD NO.3, MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUHAMMA (CRIME NO.30/96). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.496 of 2002 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. ORDER Revision petitioner was accused of commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the Code'). He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala in C.C.No.209 of 1996. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 451 and 294(b) but convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-. Revision petitioner carried the matter in appeal but without success. Hence, this revision. 2. Revision petitioner and counsel remained absent. There is no representation. I heard the Public Prosecutor. 3. It is contended in the Revision Petition that prosecution has not proved the case beyond doubt. 4. Case is that on 12.2.1996 at about 7 p.m. revision petitioner criminally trespassed into the office of Sree Poonjilikavu Devi Temple, used obscene words at PWs 1 and 2 and voluntarily caused hurt to them by beating with hands. PWs 1 and 2 gave evidence regarding alleged incident. They claimed that they were assaulted by the revision petitioner. PWs 3, 4 and 7 supported the prosecution. They claimed that revision petitioner, on the relevant day, time and place assaulted PWs 1 and 2. PW6 examined PW2 on 12.2.1996 Crl.R.P.No.496/2002 2 at about 8.10 p.m. and issued Ext.P2. PW2 had tenderness on the left shoulder and right side of chest. He came with the history that he was assaulted in the compound of the temple. PW6 examined PW1 on the same day at 8.10 p.m. and issued Ext.P3. PW1 had tenderness on the right wrist and right loom and behind left ear. He also came with the history that he was assaulted in the compound of the temple. PW6 opined that injuries stated in Exts.P2 and P3 could be caused as alleged. 5. Learned magistrate found that offences under Sections 451 and 294(b) of the Code are not established. Learned magistrate however, acting on the evidence above stated, found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 323 of the Code. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 gets corroboration from PWs 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Exts.P1 and P2. There is no reason to disbelieve that evidence. I have gone through the judgments and findings of the courts below and find no reason to interfere with, either in the matter of conviction or sentence. Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. Crl.M.P.No.3302 of 2002 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.496/2002 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.496 of 2001 ORDER 16th October, 2008