Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J
RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1 OF 2017|Crl.A NO.42 OF 2013|CC NO.694 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
For the Respondents: SMT. MAYA.M.N
Convictions can be overturned if the evidence presented is found inadequate and improperly assessed by trial and appellate courts.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the legal repercussions surrounding the conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, and 324 r/w 149 IPC on accused Nos. 1, 3, and 9. The court found substantial shortcomings in evidence presentation, leading to the decision that previous judgments were perverse. It discussed the lack of corroborative evidence, particularly regarding weapon recovery and witness identification. The primary issue lay in whether sufficient evidence was presented to uphold the convictions based on prosecutorial obligations. The court emphasized adequate appreciation of evidence in establishing guilt, identifying critical lapses in the prosecution's case, notably a lack of investigative diligence and witness reliability. Consequently, the previous convictions and sentences against accused Nos. 1, 3, and 9 were overturned, resulting in their immediate release.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the conviction under ipc sections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding prosecution's evidence shortcomings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's evaluation undermines previous judgments. (Para 9) |
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioners under Sections 143 ,147,148,452,323 and 324 r/w 149 of I.P.C.
2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1,3 and 9 in C.C.No. 694/2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkala. They, along with twelve other accused, stood trial before that court for committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, and 326 r/w 149 of I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case is that on 20.01.2006 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons such as iron rods and trespassed into the house of PW2 and attacked PW1 and PW2, inflicting grievous injuries upon them. It is alleged that while the first accused hit PW1 on his right hand wrist using an iron rod causing fracture, the 2nd accused hit him on his left elbow using an iron rod. Then the 3rd accused hit PW2 on his back with an iron rod, and the other accused beat him.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found accused Nos. 1,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,13 and 14 guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section 143 ,147,148,452,323 and 324 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder. But it acquitted these accused of the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. It sentenced the aforementioned accused to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under of I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 147 of I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each under Section 148 of I.P.C., to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 452 of I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 323 of I.P.C., and to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 324 of I.P.C., all with default clauses. The case against the other accused was split up and refiled.
5. Accused Nos. 1,3 and 9 along with other accused, carried the matter in appeal by filing Criminal Appeal No. 42/2013 before the Addl.Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The said court, by judgment dated 31.10.2016, allowed the appeal in part and found accused Nos.5,6,10,11 and 13 not guilty of the offences and acquitted them thereof. It is also found that accused No. 9, not guilty of the offence underSection 148of the I.P.C., and acquitted him thereof. But it upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 3, and 9 underSection 143,147,323,324 and 452 r/w 149 of I.P.C. and the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 underSection 148of I.P.C. The sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1,3 and 9 were reduced, and they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each underSection 143of I.P.C, a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each underSection 147of I.P.C.,to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each underSection 452of I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each underSection 323of I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for a period of three months each underSection 324of I.P.C, with default clauses. Further, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/- each underSection 148of the I.P.C., with default clause.
6. Heard Adv. Shajin S.Hameed, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv. Maya M.N , the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial court and the appellate court have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the revision petitioners. He argued that the investigation in this case has been conducted in a very shabby manner, and even the weapons used in the attack has not been recovered. He further submitted
