Kerala High Court
Yijayan vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2009
Author: P.Q.Barkath Ali
Bench: P.Q.Barkath Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 765 of 2001()
1. YIJAYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Crl.R.P. No. 765 of 2001
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.676 of 1992 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Punalur and the appellants in Crl.A.No.28 of 1994 of the Sessions Court, Kollam. All the accused were convicted under section 332 IPC and the first accused was also convicted under section 294(b) IPC and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under section 332 IPC and first accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 294(b) IPC. On appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed their conviction and sentence. Now the accused have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence.
2. The case of the prosecution, as shaped in evidence before the trial court was that on August 31, 1992 at 6.40 A.M. the accused persons due to previous enmity with intention to assault PW1, prevented him from discharging his public duty as a driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing Crl.R.P. No.765/01 2 registration No. KLX 3999, dragged him out from the driver's seat and the first accused slapped him and beat him with hand and second accused beat him with ticket rack and third accused beat him with hand and that thereby accused 1 to 3 committed an offence punishable under section 332 IPC and the first accused committed an offence punishable under section 294(b) IPC.
3. When the accused persons appeared before the trial court, accused 2 and 3 pleaded not guilty to the charge under sections 332 read with section 34 IPC and the first accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under sections 332 and 294(b) read with section 34 IPC. PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to 6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. When questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the entire incident. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on their side. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence, found all accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under section 332 IPC and the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 294(b) IPC and and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each under section 332 IPC and first accused was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 294(b) IPC . On appeal by the accused, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The Crl.R.P. No.765/01 3 accused have come up in revision challenging their conviction and sentence.
4. The following points arise for consideration :-
1) Whether the conviction of the revision petitioners rendered by the trial court which was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court can be sustained?
2) Whether the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners is excessive or unduly harsh?
5. PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. PW1 who is the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus is the de facto complainant. He testified in terms of the prosecution case. PW2 is the Conductor of the bus. I have gone through their evidence. Their evidence is supported by PWs.3 and 4 independent witnesses. It was not even suggested to PW1 in cross-examination that there was any enmity towards the revision petitioners. Thus, in my view the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in believing their evidence and holding that the revision petitioners have committed the offences under section 332 IPC and the first revision petitioner has also committed an offence punishable under section 294(b) IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the revision petitioners 1 to 3 under section 332 IPC and conviction of the first revision petitioner also under section 294(b) IPC is confirmed.
6. As regards the sentence, the incident happened on August 31, Crl.R.P. No.765/01 4 1992. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under section 332 IPC would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine imposed on the first revision petitioner under section 294(b) IPC has to be confirmed.
7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioners 1 to 3 under section 332 IPC is confirmed and conviction of the first revision petitioner under section 294
(b) IPC is also confirmed. The revision petitioners 1 to 3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under section 332 IPC and the first revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under section 294(b) IPC.
8. The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on or before 30-11-2009 to receive the sentence. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. Their bail bonds are cancelled.
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE.
mn.
Crl.R.P. No.765/01 5
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 765 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O R D E R 3rd day of November, 2009