IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 191 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2015 IN CRA NO.92 OF

2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.572 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

1 PRIYESH AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.DEVAN, MANNATHARA (H), KARA DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE.

2 VIBEESH AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.DEVAN, MANNATHARA (H), KARA DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SRI.MILESH.V.PAVIYALA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

SMT. MAYA. M.N, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2024, THE COURT ON 30.10.2024, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2024 This Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur against the judgment confirming the judgment of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur in CC. No.572 of 2010, convicting and sentencing them under Section 341, 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused 1 and 2 had the common intention to assault PW1 and in furtherance of the common intention, on 5.5.2010 at about 7 p.m., the first accused wrongfully restrained him, beat on his face and pushed him down. As a result of the same, PW1 lost a teeth. It is also alleged that when PW1 fell down, the 2^nd accused kicked on his both thigh.

3. The evidence in the case consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 7 and Exhibits P1 to P7. No evidence was adduced by the accused persons. After analysing the evidence on record, the trial court found both the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 r/w section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo various punishments including simple imprisonment for a a period of four months and fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 325 IPC. In appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, they preferred this revision raising various contentions.

4. Now, the point that arise for consideration are the following:

1. Whether the conviction of the revision petitioners under Sections 341, 323 and 325 r/w 34 of IPC as confirmed by the Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised in the revision petition?

5. Heard Sri. K.B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Smt. Maya M.N, learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The point: The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would argue that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 relied upon by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court are contrary to each other on several material points and as such, it was argued that, the judgment of conviction sustained by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered with. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor would argue that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial court as well as the Appellate Court.

7. One of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that according to PW1, when the 1^st accused pushed him, he fell on the road on his back, while according to PW3, PW1 fell down on the nearby 'cana' (drainage). Further according to him, during the cross examination, PW1 deposed that PW4 came to the scene of occurrence after the accused persons went away from there, while according to PW4, he came there before the accused persons left the place. It was further argued that there is no corresponding injuries on the body of PW1 if he had actually fell down on the road or on the drainage as claimed by PWs 1 and 3. Another a