Conviction under IPC Section 332 upheld; sentence modified to a fine due to mitigating factors.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner as per the judgment dated 26.07.2019 in C.C. No.1035 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Hosdurg and the judgment dated 02.09.2021 in Crl.Appeal No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court – III, Kasaragod. It was a prosecution initiated against the Revision petitioner under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (for short ' IPC ')

2. The prosecution case is that, on 25.09.2011 at

8.10 pm at Vellarikundu junction in-Balal village, the defacto complainant, a police officer along with the sub inspector of police and another policeman had gone to the place of occurrence on information that there is a law and order problem. As the police party was dispersing a group of 30 persons gathered at the place of occurrence, the accused pulled down the defacto complainant asking his authority to disperse them. The defacto complainant sustained injury and thereby the accused obstructed his official duty. Thus, accused said to have committed the above said offence.

3. To substantiate the case, PW1 to PW9 were examined on the side of the prosecution. Exts.P1 to P5 are the exhibits. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused committed the offence under Section 332 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. The Additional Sessions Judge - III, Kasaragod considered the appeal and confirmed the conviction under . But the sentence was modified and the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default sentence of one month. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the finding of conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the finding of conviction and sentence. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 332 IPC . Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under .

6. The next question to be decided is whether the sentence imposed is to be interfered by this Court. The sentence that can be imposed for the offence under Section 332 IPC is for a term which may extend up to 3 years, or with fine or with both. It shows that the imprisonment is not mandatory. A perusal of the prosecution case would show that the incident happened in a spur of moment. The accused assembled knowing that a person named Vegathanam Saji had abused another person and police interfered and there was a push and pull. The victim officer sustained only a minor injury. Moreover, the alleged incident happened on 25.09.2011. Now, about 13 years over. No criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner can be modified to fine.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed