IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1344 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.941/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N.PARAVUR CC.327/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS JOSE CHANDY S/O. JOSE CHANDY, A.T.VILLA, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN-18. 2. CHANDY C., S/O. A.C.CHANDY, 28/772, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20. 3. A.A.JOSEPH S/O. A.O.AUGUSTINE, AREECKAL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY, NARAKKAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. PETER T.THOMAS, ADVOCATE XL/5040, THOPPIL LANE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A.NO.5944/2004 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1344/2004 DISMISSED 27-05-2011 Sd/-, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE /True Copy/ P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1344 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 ORDER Revision petitioners are the accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.327/2001 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Aluva and appellants in Crl.A.941/2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. They were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 342 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under each count by the trial court by judgment dated December 5, 2002. On appeal by the accused persons, the lower appellate court by judgment dated March 26, 2004 confirmed their conviction and sentence. The accused persons have now come up in appeal challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the defacto complainant, PW1 as testified by him as PW1 before the trial court and as stated in his complaint in brief is this: PW1 is a practising lawyer at Ernakulam Bar. He was occupying Crl.R.P.No.1344/2004 2 a room which was originally obtained by the accused persons on lease. The access to the room in possession of PW1 was through the room in the possession of the accused persons. There was some dispute between PW1 and the accused persons regarding the room. On May 5, 1994 accused persons in furtherance of their common intension wrongfully restrained PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating and kicking and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 448, 342, 323 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 3. On receipt of the complaint, the trial court after conducting enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence under Section 448, 342, 323 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The accused persons on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 448, 342, 323 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. On the side of the complainant, Pws 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the entire incident. No defence evidence was adduced. On an appreciation of evidence, the trial court found that the accused persons have wrongfully restrained him and voluntarily caused Crl.R.P.No.1344/2004 3 hurt to him by beating and kicking and convicted them under Section 342, 323 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. They were acquitted of the charge under Section 448 of IPC. The accused persons were sentenced as aforesaid. The appeal filed by the accused persons were dismissed by the lower appellate court. Now the accused persons have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, counsel for the revision petitioners/accused persons submitted that the matter has been compounded. Crl.M.A.No.3326/2011 is filed by the accused persons and defacto complainant seeking permission to compound the offence which is allowed by me. As the offences have been compounded, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal are set aside. Revision petitioners/accused persons are acquitted under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.1344/2004 4