Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 CRIME NO.130/1994 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 94/1999 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING IN CC 285/1995 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLATE/1ST ACCUSED: NAZEER AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED SHAFI, THONICHAN VEEDU, MADANVILA, AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R.B.BALACHANDRAN(K/411/2004) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. SMT.SEENA C., P.P. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1215 of 2023 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2023
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 1 st accused in C.C.No.285 of 1995 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 324 read with 149 IPC, stands convicted for the aforesaid offences concurrently by the courts below. He has also been sentenced to imprisonment for various terms for those offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 7.12.94 at about 8.30 p.m near Madanvila bridge the 8 accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sword, iron rod, wooden sticks etc and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they wrongfully restrained PW1 and others, criminally intimidated them and assaulted PWs.1 to 6 by cutting them with sword and hitting them with iron rods etc.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10 and got marked 11 documents as Exts.P1 to P11.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per
judgment dated 15.02.1999 found accused Nos.1,2 and 8
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 324 read with 149 I.P.C. The revision petitioner/2nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for offences punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each for the offences punishable under Section 506(ii) and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl.Appeal
No.94/1999, the lower appellate court as per judgment
dated 21.8.07 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision.
6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, inasmuch as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a
careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. The 2nd accused, whose conviction has also been confirmed by the appellate court, and preferred Crl.R.P.No.214 of 2009 before this Court and as per the order dated 11.02.2009, the said revision petition was disposed of, confirming the
conviction but, modifying the sentence. For that reason also, I find that no interference with the conviction of the petitioner is warranted.
7. As per the order dated 11.02.2009, sentence imposed on the 2nd accused was modified by this Court, directing him to pay compensation of Rs.12,000/-, besides imposing fine.
8. In the circumstances, the sentence imposed
on the petitioner is modified. The petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 324 of the IPC. The other offences being cognate, no separate imprisonment is imposed. In consideration of the loss sustained to the injured,
PWs. 1 to 6, the petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.24,000/-, which shall be equally divided among PWs.1 to 6. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of compensation before the trial court within two months, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. This Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE AS APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 1215/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 17.06.2016 ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE MRI SCAN REPORT DATED 17.06.2016 ISSUED FROM MUTHOOT DIAGNOSTICS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
DATED 22.11.2019