IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1078 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.155/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.324/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. PRAMOD, S/O.DARMAN, THAIVALAPPIL, EMMAD, PAPPINIVATTOM. 2. MURALI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KAIMAPARAMBIL, KOOLIMUTTAM, PAPPINIVATTOM. 3. SANTHOSH, S/O.DARMAN, THAIVALLY, EMMAD, PAPPINIVATTOM. 4. BIJOY, S/O.KOCHANDI, THAIVALLY, EMMAD, DO. DO. 5. SUNIL KUMAR S/O.APPU, KATTUPARAMBIL, EMMAD, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.D.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM (CRIME NO.136/97 OF THE MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1078 of 2002 CRL.M.P.5756/2002 Dismissed. 1.12.2009. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ------------------------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. 1078 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: DECEMBER 1, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners 1 to 5 are accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 in C.C.324/1997 of JFCM, Kodungallur and appellants in Crl.A.155/2001 of III Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc) Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur. They were convicted under secs.143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with sec.149 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under sec.143 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months each under sec.147 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year each under sec.148 of IPC, simple imprisonment for one month each under sec.341 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year each under sec.324 of IPC. They are also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under sec.324 of of|IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case against the 3rd accused was split up as he was absconding. The conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners were confirmed in appeal. Now the revision petitioners have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The case of the prosecution as shaped in evidence before the trial court is that on April 13, 1997 at about 8.45 p.m. revision CRL. R.P. 1078 of 2002 2 petitioners along with the absconding 3rd accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the objection of that assembly, they wrongfully restrained PW.1/de facto complainant, PWs.2, 3, 5 and CW.4 at Thattungal Panchayath road when they were returning home after seeing cinema, and the 1st accused beat PW.1 on his head with a wooden stick and other accused persons beat PWs. 2, 3, 5 and CW.4 with hands causing hurt to them and that thereby committed the offence punishable under secs. 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with sec.149 of IPC. When the accused persons except the 3rd accused appeared before the trial court, they pleaded not guilty to the charges under secs. 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with sec.149 of IPC. 3. P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 and MO.1 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under sec.313 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioners denied the entire incident. No defence evidence was adduced. 4. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence found the revision petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under secs. 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with sec.149 of IPC., convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as aforesaid which is confirmed in appeal. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 have now come up in revision CRL. R.P. 1078 of 2002 3 challenging their conviction and sentence. 5. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 6. The following points arise for consideration:- I. Whether the conviction of the revision petitioners under secs. 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with sec.149 of IPC. can be sustained? II. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh? Point No.I 7. PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 and MO.1 were marked on the side of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons. PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 testified in terms of the prosecution case. I shall first consider whether the charge under secs. 143, 147, 148, 341 and 324 read with sec.149 of IPC will lie against accused 2 and 4 to 6. The specific case of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 is that the accused persons beat them with hands and kicked them causing injuries to them. But they were neither admitted in hospital nor produced any wound certificate. Further, the incident occurred at 8.45 p.m. Therefore it is doubtful whether PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 might have recognised the above accused persons. In these circumstances I give the benefit of doubt to accused Nos.2 and 4 to 6 and acquit them of all CRL. R.P. 1078 of 2002 4 the charges levelled against them. 8. As regards the 1st accused, PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 categorically stated that he was the person who beat PW.1 with the stick. Further, he is a person known to the witnesses prior to the incident. No serious discrepancies were brought out during the cross-examination of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 regarding the identity of the 1st accused. Both the courts below have believed their evidence. I find no reason to come to a different conclusion. Further, it was not even suggested during the cross-examination of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 that they have any enmity towards the 1st accused. For all these reasons I am inclined to confirm the finding of the trial court which is confirmed in appeal that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.4.1997 at about 8.45 p.m. the 1st accused beat PW.1 with a stick causing injuries described in Ext.P2 wound certificate, which is an offence punishable under sec.324 of IPC. As I have acquitted the other accused persons, the 1st accused is also acquitted of the charges under secs. 143, 147, 148 and 341 read with sec.149 of IPC, The conviction of the 1st accused under sec.324 of IPC alone is confirmed. Point No.II 9. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1000/- to the CRL. R.P. 1078 of 2002 5 1st accused. The incident is of the year 1997. Further, the 1st accused sustained only a simple injury. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that a fine of Rs.5000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of revision petitioners 2 to 5 are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The conviction of the 1st revision petitioner under secs. 143, 147, 148 and 341 read with sec.149 of IPC is also set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges. The conviction of the 1st revision petitioner under sec.324 of IPC is confirmed. His sentence is modified to the effect that he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW.1 as compensation as provided under sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. One month time is granted for payment of fine. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-