Evidence of possession in criminal trespass can vary; witness testimonies were sufficient to uphold convictions excluding one charge. Appellate Court's sentence modifications were legitimate.

ORDER :

G. Girish, J.

The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Alappuzha, in Crl.A.No.75/2019, is under challenge in these revisions, filed by the appellants 1 to 6 therein, who are the accused nos.1 to 6 in S.C.No.554/2017 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The aforesaid case arose out of Crime No.507/2015 of Punnapra Police Station, registered in connection with the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427 & 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short, ' IPC '). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the petitioners for the commission of all the above offences, except Section 294 (b) IPC , and imposed the sentence by awarding various prison terms and fine. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction of the petitioners for all the above offences, except 308 IPC . While acquitting the petitioners in respect of the offence under Section 308 IPC , the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence by reducing the prison terms awarded by the Trial Court for all the offences. Challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 15.12.2020 of the Additional Sessions Court -III, Alappuzha, the petitioners are here with these revision petitions.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 6), after having made preparation for causing hurt and assault up on the de facto complainant (CW1), CW2 and CW3, criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and mounted physical assault upon the de facto complainant and CW2 and CW3, with the use of deadly weapons like sword and iron rods. The petitioners are said to have committed the aforesaid acts after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of inflicting bodily harm upon CW1 to CW3, and also causing destruction to the properties in their house. The first accused is alleged to have waved the sword towards the neck of CW1 with the intention of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but the above assault was warded off by CW1 with his right hand resulting in cut injury upon his right hand. The second and third accused are alleged to have beaten CW1 with iron rods, causing injuries to him. CW3, who came to the rescue of CW1, is said to have been attacked by the sixth accused by kicking upon her left cheek, and the accused Nos.4 & 5 trampling upon her chest. While the third accused is alleged to have beaten CW2 upon the left elbow, back and thigh, the fourth accused is alleged to have thrown away the rice pot from the house of the de facto complainant. The third accused is also alleged to have caused destruction to the television inside the hall room of that house and smashed the glass of the window panel. Thus, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution relied on the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW13, and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P10. That apart, seven material objects were identified as MO1 to MO7. Among the above witnesses, PW1 & PW2 are siblings, and PW3 is their mother, who sustained injuries in the assault committed by the petitioners after criminally trespassing into the residence of the aforesaid witnesses. PW4 is another independent eye-witness who testified in terms with the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 about the alleged acts committed by the accused, causing bodily harm to PW1 to PW3 and destruction to their household utensils. It is