IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3502 of 2007() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.90/98 OF THE CJM COURT, THALASSERY. REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. KADACHIRA NANU, AGED 37, S/O.KELAN, KOLAVALLUR AMSOM, PARAT DESOM. 2. VALIYAPARAMBATH PRADEESH, AGED 28, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KOLAVALLUR AMSOM, DESOM. 3. KARIYADAN VEETTIL SAJEEVAN, AGED 35, S/O.KUNHOOTY, KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM. 4. THALATHIL KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 37, S/O.KANARAN, KOLAVALLUR AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & FORMAL PARTY ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.H.O. KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION, KOLAVALLUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3502 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 ORDER This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 448, 323 and 324 read with Sec.149 IPC. 2. Altogether, there are five accused persons. Four of them alone were available for trial. The petitioners are the four accused who have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced. 3. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation. The accused denied the charges levelled against them. Thereupon, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and proved Exts.P1 to P8. M.Os.1 to 4 were also marked. Crl.R.P.No. 3502 of 2007 -: 2 :- 4. The prosecution alleged that on account of prior animosity consequent to some disputes between the 4th accused – the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant, the five related accused persons had trespassed into the residential building of P.W.1 at 9.15 p.m. on 16/1/98 and had caused injuries to P.Ws. 1 to 3 with dangerous weapons. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 is his wife and P.W.3 is the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2. Another daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 – C.W.4, had also allegedly suffered injuries in the incident. 5. P.W.4 is the Doctor who examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and C.W.4 and issued Exts.P2 to P5 wound certificates. P.Ws.5 to 10 are the neighbours who on hearing the commotion had gone to the house of P.W.1 on that night. They spoke about the incident; but asserted that they have not seen the incident proper. They have not identified the accused also. According to them, they heard the cries and ran towards the house of P.W.1. They came to know of the incident. The miscreants had by then run away. P.W.11 recorded the statement of P.W.1 and that statement is Ext.P1. Ext.P7 – FIR was registered on the basis of that First Information Statement. Ext.P6 is the scene mahazar to which P.W.7 is an attestor. P.W.10 – Investigating Officer Crl.R.P.No. 3502 of 2007 -: 3 :- conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. P.W.13 is the official examined to prove the ownership/ possession of the house in question by P.W.1. 6. The accused took up a defence of total denial. No defence evidence whatsoever was adduced. 7. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 which is corroborated satisfactorily by the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 10 as also the injuries suffered by them described in Exts.P2 to P5 and the prompt First Information Statement – Ext.P1 can safely be accepted and acted upon. Accordingly, the courts below found the petitioners guilty of the offences alleged against them. While the trial court imposed deterrent substantive sentences, the appellate court indulgently modified the sentence. The accused persons now face only imprisonment till rising of court and fine. The trial court had found them guilty of various offences; but had omitted to impose separate sentences for the offences under Secs.323 and 147 IPC. The appellate court while modifying the sentences ensured that punishment of fine was imposed for these offences also. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Crl.R.P.No. 3502 of 2007 -: 4 :- Public Prosecutor have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioners assails the impugned concurrent judgments on various grounds. 9. First of all, it is contended that reliance should not have been placed on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. About the identity of the miscreants, it is true that we have the oral evidence of only P.Ws.1 to 3. I find absolutely no reason which should have persuaded the courts below to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Their evidence as noted by the courts below is corroborated by the versions narrated to P.W.4 – Doctor in Exts.P2 to P5. Two of them had not suffered any external injuries. One of them had suffered only pain. But the principal victim – P.W.1, had suffered tell tale injuries to broadly corroborate the versions of P.Ws.1 to 3. The fact that some of the witnesses have not suffered any external injuries is not, according to me, sufficient to generate any reasonable doubt in the mind of the court against the version of P.Ws.1 to 3. It is very evident that the principal target of attack was P.W.1 and others happened to be attacked and suffered injuries because they intervened. In these circumstances, the fact that only P.W.1 had suffered serious injuries does not in any way militate Crl.R.P.No. 3502 of 2007 -: 5 :- against the acceptability of the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. 10. I am unable to agree that there are any circumstances which can persuade this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the courts below in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. It is, of course, true that specific motive is not established; but the allegation is that the incident took place on account or prior animosity. Even the accused had no case that there is no strain in the relationship. It is their case that false implication was resorted to because of such prior animosity and strain. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appellate court erred in imposing the sentence for offences for which the court below had not imposed sentences specifically. I am not inclined to interfere with that course adopted by the appellate court. The appellate court had indulgently modified the sentence and had ensured that the sentences were imposed for all offences for which the accused were found guilty, convicted and sentenced. At any rate, I am not persuaded to agree that the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction needs to be invoked to interfere with the said course adopted by the appellate court. Crl.R.P.No. 3502 of 2007 -: 6 :- 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are all coolies and that the sentences of fine imposed on them is excessive. The appellate court has shown indulgence and leniency in the matter of sentence. I am not persuaded to agree that any further leniency is called for. 13. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge