The court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, limited to correcting miscarriage of justice; the testimony of an injured witness is highly credible, and a test identification parade is not strictly required if the courtroom identification is otherwise convincing and reliable.

ORDER :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

The criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 08.11.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.211/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Vatakara, arising out of the judgment dated 05.02.2008 in C.C. No.447/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara. The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in the said case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.05.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, criminally trespassed into Room No. XXVI/112 of the Vatakara Municipality, where PW2, a Medical Officer, was conducting consultations and which was under t he possession of PW9. Thereafter, the accused allegedly abused PW2 in obscene language, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty. According to the prosecution, the accused committed the aforesaid acts due to prior enmity arising out of an incident in which a patient named Reena had died while undergoing treatment under PW2. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, 354, and 294(b) r/w 149 of the IPC.

3. The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452, and 354 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and convicted them thereunder. Consequently, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 143 , and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 452 . Moreover, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w 149 . Likewise, the fourth accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months for the offence punishable under r/w 149 of the . Fine amount, if realised, half of the same was ordered to be given to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.211/2008 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vatakara, upon hearing the appeal, found all the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w 149 of the IPC, and instead they were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 . For the said offence, all the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Moreover, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 a nd 452 of the . Aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred the present revision petition.

5. Heard Sri. Sunny Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Smt. Anima M., the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also pursued.

6. This is a case in which accused Nos. 1 to 5 allegedly trespassed into the consulting room of a doctor and assaulted her. The alleged motive for the commission of the offence was the death of a relative of one of the accused while undergoing treatment under the said doctor.

7. Before delving into the question whether any interference is required in the concurrent findings, it is to be borne in mind that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will interfere with orders or judgments of t he court