IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 260 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.451/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.593/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1. ---------------------------------------------------------- SOJAN, S/O.THMAS JOSEPH,AGED 35 YEARS, VILATHITHARA HOUSE, CHERUKONAKKUNNU, PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 260 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of February,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the first accused inC.C.593/2003 on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry. Second accused is now no more. The prosecution case against the revision petitioner was that on 17.3.2001 at about 10 a.m in furtherance of the common intention with deceased second accused they were wrongfully restrained PW1 the Police Constable on duty at platform No.II of Changanacherry Railway Station and uttered obscene words and assaulted PW1 and prevented him from discharging his official duty and thereby committed an offence under section 332 and 341 of IPC. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. On the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P4 the Magistrate convicted CRRP 260/2009 2 revision petitioner for the offence under section 332 and 341 IPC finding that he wrongfully restrained PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him and also deterred him from discharging his official duty. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 332 IPC and simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under section 341 IPC. The offence as against second accused was declared abated as he is no more. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.451/2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence set aside the conviction for the offence under section 341 IPC and found not guilty of the said offence confirmed the conviction for the offence confirmed the conviction for the offence under section 332 IPC. Sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were CRRP 260/2009 3 heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and when learned Sessions Judge found that revision petitioner did not wrongfully restrained PW1, finding that hurt was caused to PW1 is not sustainable. It was argued that there is no legal reliable and acceptable evidence in support of the contention of PW1 and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. Learned counsel further submitted that in any case having found that the incident occurred due to the sudden provocation, learned Magistrate should not have awarded a substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one month and in the interest of justice the sentence is to be modified. 4. On going through the judgments of the learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. The evidence of PW1 establish that on 17.3.2001 he was on official duty between 10 a.m CRRP 260/2009 4 and 4 p.m and when the passenger train came to the platform, revision petitioner was found unauthorisedly vending coffee and the second accused vada and they were coming out of the train. PW1 who is authorised to register petty cases against unauthorised vendors, asked revision petitioner to collect notice from the Police Station so as to appear before Special Court at Kollam. Revision petitioner got provoked and declared that he is not ready to receive the notice. When PW1 warned him, revision petitioner questioning his authority and fisted on his face and thereby caused hurt as well as obstruction to his official duty. Though learned counsel argued that the evidence of PW1 should not have been believed as PW2 did not fully support his version, on going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below on appreciation of evidence. It is definitely a possible and reasonable view that could be taken on evidence and CRRP 260/2009 5 exercising the revisional jurisdiction it is not for this court to reappreciate the evidence, when the view taken by the courts below is a possible and reasonable one. Therefore conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 332 IPC is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, learned Sessions Judge himself found that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation, when PW1 warned the revision petitioner to stop vending coffee in the train and platform and wanted him to appear before the court after receipt of a notice. Section 332 of IPC provides for a sentence of imprisonment which may extent to three years or fine or both. When the learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner was not involved in any other case, learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get a report on the question whether revision petitioner was involved in any other case. Learned Public Prosecutor on CRRP 260/2009 6 instructions submitted that revision petitioner is not involved in any other case. In such circumstance, considering the fact that the incident was in 2001 and was the result of a sudden provocation, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified to fine instead of simple imprisonment for one month. Revision is therefore allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 332 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry is directed to execute the sentence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006