Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.R. Anitha, J.
Vinodan - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 109 of 2011
Decided On : 19-06-2020
For the Appellant : K.S. Madhusoodanan, T.V. Jayakumar Namboodiri, P.K. Rakesh Kumar, Thushar Nirmal Sarathy and M.M. Vinod Kumar, Advs.
For the Respondents: M.S. Breez, Sr. PP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the place of occurrence and the presence of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Criminal Law - IPC 143, 147, 148, 323, 326 read with 149 - The court discussed the interpretation of former statements of witnesses, the credibility of witness testimony, and the burden of proof in a criminal case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence and the presence of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was convicted under IPC Section 326 for causing grievous hurt. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, attacked the victim out of political rivalry. The petitioner denied the allegations and challenged the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence and the presence of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It concluded that the conviction and sentence were based on improper appreciation of facts and evidence, causing a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of witness testimony, the burden of proof in a criminal case, and the consistency of evidence regarding the place of occurrence and the overt act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the place of occurrence and the presence of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It also highlighted the need for consistent and credible witness testimony in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the concurrent findings of guilt, conviction, and sentence. The bail bond was cancelled, and the petitioner was set at liberty.
ORDER :
M.R. Anitha, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner.
2. The revision petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 208/1998 charge-sheeted by the sub inspector of police, Mattannur, Police station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 326 read with 149 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is as follows:
On 18.12.1998 at about 5.30 pm, the accused persons who are CPM sympathizers, out of political rivalry with PW1 for working in the election campaign for Congress (I) candidate of Keezhallur Service Co-operative Bank Election, in prosecution of the common object of causing grievous hurt to PW1 after forming themselves into unlawful assembly, approached PW1 at Kotheri Veliyamparamb road and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1 by striking with deadly weapon, MO1 iron stick, at his left knee and the other accused kicked him and beat him with hand and thereby voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him and committed the offences aforementioned.
4. PW5 who was the ASI attached to Mattannur police station during the relevant time recorded Ext. P1 FI Statement of PW1 at Kannur Government hospital and on the basis of the same, Ext. P3 FIR was registered. Thereafter, PW9 the head constable attached to Mattannur police station conducted the investigation and prepared scene mahazar and questioned the witnesses. Thereafter PW7, the sub inspector of police attached to Mattannur police station, verified the investigation and filed the charge against the accused for the offences aforementioned.
5. On the side of the prosecution PW1 to 9 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. MO1 was identified and marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence accused persons were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., they denied all the incriminating facts and circumstances put to them. On the side of the defence Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. After trial the court below found the revision petitioner/first accused guilty under Sec. 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo further period of imprisonment for six months. If fine amount is realized, it was directed to be given to PW1. Accused Nos. 2 to 10 were acquitted under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Revision petitioner/first accused is also acquitted for the offences under Secs. 143, 147, 148, read with Sec. 149 IPC.
6. Against the conviction and sentence Crl. Appeal No. 330/2004 was filed and the learned Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III) dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and sentence passed by the court below, the appellant came up in revision for the various grounds stated in the memorandum of revision.
7. Notice was issued to the respondent and the respondent appeared through the learned public prosecutor. Lower Court records were called for. Heard both sides.
8. To prove the occurrence prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of PW1-the victim, PW2 and 4-the two eye witnesses. PW1 the injured would state that the incident occurred on 18.12.1998 at about 5.30 pm on the mud road in front of the house of Gopalan master while he was standing there. According to him, about 20 people came together and among them, first and fourth accused beat him with iron bar on his left leg and he fell down. At that time, about eight people who accompanied them, kicked and beat him and the bone below his left knee has been totally broken. Further he deposed that he is a congress party worker and the accused persons are CPI (M) activists. Ext. P1 FIS given by him was marked through him. He also identified MO1 as the iron rod used by the first accused for beating him.
9. PW2 is one Ravindran and he also deposed that the incident occurred on 18.12.1998 at about 5.30 pm at the mud road leading towards Veliyamparamb. Further he deposed that while
