IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1273 of 2001() ------------------------------ {CRL.A.NO.196/98 OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM IN S.C.NO.82/97 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KOTTARAKKARA} REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- REGHU, S/O.NANU, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, AMBEDKAR COLONY, PATTAYAM COUPE, EDAMON 34, EDAMON MURI, EDAMON VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (VARINJAM) SRI.T.R.ASWAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ASST. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENMALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.1273 of 2001 ------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. O R D E R The accused in S.C.No.82/97 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara, who was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, is the petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.2.1996 at about 11 AM, the accused set fire to the thatched roof of the house of PW.1; that this resulted in the destruction of the roof and the door of the house and it caused a loss of Rs.12,000/-. He did so on account of previous enmity towards PW.1. 3. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7. From Ext.P2 scene mahazar prepared by PW.7 investigating officer, it could be seen that the house of PW.1 was thatched with cadjan leaves and the same had been completely destroyed. PW.1 was not an eye witness to the incident. But when she returned from Punalur, she saw that the roof of her house is in a burnt condition and CRL.R.P.No.1273 of 2001 :: 2 :: the household utensils had been placed outside the house. 4. PW.2 is an eye witness to the accused setting fire to the house. PW.3, a neighbour of PW.1 stated that he saw the house on fire and the accused running away from the scene. PW.4 was cited as an eye witness and he saw the house on fire. The courts below appreciated the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 and that of PW.4 and rightly came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused had set fire to the house. No substantial reason has been shown to disbelieve the testimony of PW.2 and 3. Though PW.4 turned hostile, the fact that he saw the house on fire was significantly noted. 5. The alibi pleaded by the accused was considered and rightly rejected by the courts below. DW.2 is the father of the accused, who should have felt obliged to support the plea set up by his son. In fact, the plea of alibi was quite feeble and was rightly not accepted by the courts below. CRL.R.P.No.1273 of 2001 :: 3 :: 6. On an overall appreciation of the evidence in the case and after going through the evidence and considering the judgments of the courts below, I am of the view that no grounds have been made out to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the accused for an offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the nature of the offence, the sentence imposed also does not warrant any interference on the ground that it is excessive or harsh. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this Criminal Revision Petition is bereft of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge