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