Kerala High Court
P.V. Babu vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2012
Author: N.K.Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/6TH CHAITHRA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 467 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
CRA.51/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY
CC.123/2002 of C.J.M.,THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:- 1ST ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------------
P.V. BABU
S/O.KUNJIRAMAN,AGED 40 YEARS,PUTHIYAVEETTIL
ANJARAKANDY AMSOM,MAMBA DESOM,KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
SMT.R.LEELA
RESPONDENT:
-----------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH. V.S.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J.
------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 467 of 2012
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2012
ORDER
Petitioner was the first accused who along with five others faced trial before the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 r/w 149 IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate found the petitioner alone guilty of the offence and he was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the maximum of which is S.I. for 6 months. Appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since all the other five accused persons were acquitted by the learned Magistrate, the evidence given by PW.3 should not have been accepted by the trial court and the appellate court. But that contention is resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor. The incident Crl.R.P. No. 467 of 2012 -: 2 :- took place on 14.12.2001 at a place called Kavinmoola bus stop. According to the prosecution, even if part of the prosecution version is found unacceptable, that part of the case which was found to be acceptable can certainly be the basis for convicting the accused whose complicity could be proved by the prosecution. Even to the doctor, it was stated that there were altogether 6 persons. Even if it is accepted that the identity of 5 other accused persons could not be proved by the prosecution, that is no reason to say that the petitioner has to be given the verdict of acquittal.
4. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though serious allegations regarding the cause of injury were made by PW.3, especially that he was hit with 'idikatta', no such injury could be seen indicating the user of such idikatta as stated above. The doctor could see only an abrasion of Crl.R.P. No. 467 of 2012 -: 3 :- 3x2" over the left shoulder. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the allegation made to the doctor was that about 6 persons including the petitioner herein kicked or stamped the complainant, the possibility of causing lacerated injuries or other injuries is too remote and as such it cannot be said that the finding is incorrect. But if as a matter of fact, PW.3 was hit with idikatta certainly the injury would have been slightly graver. As such, it is only possible to hold that the complainant was hit or kicked by the petitioner herein and others and if so, the offence would fall only under Section 323 IPC. Since there is evidence to show that there were altogether 6 accused persons, the conviction under Section 143 and 147 r/w 149 IPC also has to be sustained. Since there is evidence to show that PW.3 was wrongfully restrained, the conviction under Section 341 IPC also is only to be sustained. The Crl.R.P. No. 467 of 2012 -: 4 :- learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if at all, there was only a scuffle between two groups and only because of political rivalry this case happened to be registered. Considering all the aspects, I find that the sentence also is to be modified.
In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below:-
The verdict of conviction under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 r/w 149 IPC is confirmed. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC is set aside and he is acquitted of that offence.
The revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine for the offence under Section 147 r/w 149 IPC and in default to undergo S.I. for two months and Rs.500/- as fine for the offence Crl.R.P. No. 467 of 2012 -: 5 :- under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC and in default to undergo S.I. for one month. He is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the offence under Section 323 r/w 149 IPC and in default, he will undergo S.I. for three months. If the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- as mentioned above is paid, it shall be paid to the complainant/injured (PW.3) as compensation. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 143 IPC in view of Section 71 of IPC. The petitioner will appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 12.04.12 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the fine and compensation amount.
Sd/-
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True copy// P.A. To Judge Crl.R.P. No. 467 of 2012 -: 6 :- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd