IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 320 of 2000()
1. RAGHAVAN BABU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :26/09/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU,J
==================
Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2000
===================
Dated this the 26th day of September 2007
ORDER
Revision petitioners who are the accused 1, 3 and 4 in
C.C.No.682/1990, were convicted for the offences under
Sections 143,147,148, 225(B), 353 read with Section 149 I.P.C
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
for the offence under Section 143 IPC and simple imprisonment
for six months each for the offence under Section 147 IPC. A1
stands convicted for the offence under Section 225(B) IPC and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The prosecution case is that on 28.3.1990 at about
10.45 a.m., CW2 and party arrested the first accused for
possessing illicit liquor and when attempted to take A1 in the
jeep of the Excise party, A2 to A4 along with 65 unidenfied
persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with
dangerous weapons like stick, chopper, axe, and stones etc. and
took away A1 from the custody of excise party by force.
Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2000
:2:
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs 1 to 5 and Exts.P1 to P5.
4. PWs 1 to 3 Excise officials constituted the squad that
apprehended A1. PW4 Excise Range Inspector forwarded Ext.P1
report of PW1 to the police vide his report ie, Ext.P2 before PW5
Sub Inspector/Investigating Officer. Ext.P4 is the scene mahazar
and Ext.P5 is the report as to the identity of the accused
submitted by PW5. PWs1 to 3 have testified in support of the
prosecution version. Version of PW1 is that on the particular day
he along with ten others including PWs 2 and 3 constituting
patrol duty when reached near the Kanjikkal Cashew factory, A1
was found in possession of illicit liquor. A1 was arrested at the
spot and liquor was taken from his custody and at the time when
he was attempting to take A1 to Excise Office in the jeep, A2 to
A4 along with 65 others obstructed and took away A1 by force.
He did not resist apprehending law and order problems. He
submitted Ext.P1 report before PW4 the Excise Inspector. It is
seen that at 12 noon itself the crime has been registered vide
Ext.P3. Pws.2 and 3 have supported the version of PW1. No
Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2000
:3:
contradictions or omissions were brought out with respect to his
previous statement. PW4 has testified that in the case registered
against A1 by the Excise Authorities for possessing illicit liquor
vide; CC.66/90, A1 pleaded guilty and was fined. PW5 the Sub
Inspector has testified as to the investigation conducted and the
arrest of the accused. The contention of the counsel for the
revision petitioner is that there was no legal arrest and the same
is not established by any objective evidence and hence Section
225 will not be attracted as Section 225 only contemplates
resistance, rescue etc. of person who is lawfully detained for an
offence. I find that the the above contention, has no merits. It is
also contented that at the time a temple festival was going on
and a number of people had assembled at the spot in order to
witness the festival and accused were not at the place at all. I
find PWs1 to 3 have identified the accused. In the circumstance,
and in view of the concurrent findings of the court below, I find
that there is no ground to interfere in the order. The conviction
is confirmed.
Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2000
:4:
5. Counsel has pleaded that the revision petitioner
belonged to a very poor family and that more than 16 years
have elapsed since the commencement of the proceedings. In
the circumstances, I find that imprisonment can be avoided. In
the circumstances A3 and A4 are sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 225 IPC and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 147 IPC. A1 is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 225(B) IPC.
No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section
143 IPC. If the fine amounts are not remitted, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for each of the
offences. The revision petitioner is granted two months time
from today onwards to remit the fine amount.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
dvs