The main legal point established is the application of legal provisions related to assault, criminal force, and criminal intimidation under Sections 350, 351, and 503 IPC in determining the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 03.03.2016 in Crl.A.No.38 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur confirming the judgment dated 13.07.2015 in C.C.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.)

1. The revision petitioners/A1 to A3 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC. After due contest, the trial Court viz., the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, by judgment dated 13.07.2015 in CC.No.38 of 2012, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 353 and 506(i) IPC and sentenced them to undergo six months simple imprisonment in respect of the offence u/s 353 IPC and to undergo three months simple imprisonment in respect of the offence under Section 506(i) IPC, however, acquitted them in respect of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.38/2015 before the Appellate Court viz., the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvarar. By judgment dated 03.03.2016, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the said conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioners/A1 to A3.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.11.2011 at about 4.00pm, in front of Thiruthuraipoondi Therasal Girls Higher Secondary School, while P.W.1/complainant/Balasundari along with P.W.2/Thilagavathi, Grade I Traffic Police Constables, was on duty, the accused, who were in drunken mood, were standing on the road and giving trouble to the public and also using filthy language; when P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned the accused and asked them to go away from the road, the accused scolded them in unparliamentary words and deterred them from discharging their official duty as Traffic Police and also threatened them with dire consequences, if they inform the same to the police station; P.W.2 informed the same to the respondent police station; on such information, P.W.3/Selvanayagam, Head Constable rushed to the scene of occurrence, where P.W.1 and P.W.2 narrated the incident in detail; thereafter, PW1 came to the respondent police station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1), which was received by P.W.6/Sub Inspector of Police and was registered as FIR in Crime No.1057/2011 (Ex.P2) against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC; thereafter, P.W.6 came to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P3) and rough sketch (Ex.P4) in the presence of the witnesses P.W.4/Sankar and P.W.5/Senthilnathan; on 23.11.2011, P.W.6/Investigating officer, arrested the accused and remanded them to judicial custody; on completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed charge sheet, which culminated in CC.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi.

3. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioners/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked, whereas, on the defence side, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. On the basis of the evidence and materials available on record, the trial Court found all the accused guilty of the offences under sections 353 and 506(i) IPC and convicted for the same and sentenced them as stated above. However, all the accused were acquitted from the charge under section 294(b) IPC. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.38 of 2015, which ended in dismissal. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case by the accused.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has assailed the impugned judgments and submitted that the prosecution has not let any