IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2494 of 2009()
1. AMBU, S/O.KOCHU NARAYANAN, NJARAVILA
... Petitioner
2. RAJU, S/O.KUNJU PANICKAR,
3. PRAMOD, KUNJU PANICKAR, NJARAVILA
4. AJI, S/O.ANANDAN, PUNTALAVILA
5. RAJI, S/O.ANANDAN, PUNTALAVILA
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2494 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009
ORDER
The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1,3,5,6 and 7 in
C.C.No.1167 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class-II, Kottarakkara. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollam
East Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.166/2002
against the revision petitioners along with accused Nos.2 and 4
alleging offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 342, 323,
324 of I.P.C. with an allegation that on 7.30p.m. on 7/3/2002, the
revision petitioner formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
in furtherance of their common object and being the members of
an unlawful assembly they were armed with deadly weapons like
dragger and wrongfully confined respondents 2,3 and 4 and they
were inflicted injuries. After trial, the learned Magistrate
arrived a finding that the prosecution had not succeeded to
establish the offence alleged against accused Nos.2 and 4.
Consequently they were acquitted. Revision petitioners were
found guilty under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323 and 324 and
Crl.R.P.No.2494 of 2009
2
they were sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months
each for offence under section 143 I.PC., simple imprisonment
for six months each for offences under Sections.147, 148, 342
and 323 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to pay Rs.1,000/- for
offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Being aggrieved by the above
conviction and sentence, they preferred appeal as Crl.appeal
No.510 of 2007. The learned Sessions Judge, Kollam by
judgment dated 15/6/2009 dismissed the appeal.
2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the
above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal this
revision petition was filed.
3. Having heard either side, I find that the courts below
had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a
conclusion of guilty and I find that the conviction impugned is
unassailable.
4. Now that the revision petitioner had settled the
matter along with additional respondents 2, 3 & 4 who are the
defacto complainant and filed a deed of settlement. In the light
of the settlement arrived between the parties and taking note of
Crl.R.P.No.2494 of 2009
3
the nature of the offences, I find that it would be appropriate to
release the petitioner after due admonition.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part, while
confirming the conviction the revision petitioners are released
with due admonition. The fine amount if any deposited shall be
refunded to the revision petitioner.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
Skj.