Evidence credibility and misidentification do not invalidate conviction when core facts are established.

ORDER

The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in S.C.No.1311/2001 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. They stood trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 451 and 436 IPC r/w Section 149 before that court and they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under , 147, 451 and 435 r/w .

2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence thus passed, the revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 preferred Criminal Appeal No.243/2006 before the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. The said court vide judgment dated 07.06.2016 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

On 13.11.1997 at about 1.00 am, the accused 8 in number trespassed into the thatched house of PW1 and PW2 bearing Door No.VP VI/1254, situated in Vellarada Village and demolished the building and removed the building materials such as palm leaves, rafters etc. Thereafter, the accused took these articles to the compound of the 1^st accused which is situated nearby, along with a few household articles taken from there and set them on fire. It is alleged that, in the incident, PW1 sustained a loss of Rs.10,000/- and that the motive for commission of the offence was the denial of permission to the 1^st accused to construct a road through the property of PW1.

4. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 documents and MO1 were marked. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC, the accused took a stand of total denial. From the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and D1 document was marked. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 451 and 435 IPC r/w Section 149 and convicted and sentenced them thereunder. Accused No.8 was found not guilty and he was acquitted. The 7^th accused, who was absconding, did not face the trial. The trial court sentenced accused nos.1 to 5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 143 , rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 147 , rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 451 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 435 r/w . In case of default, the afore accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Considering the age of the 6^th accused, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under , simple imprisonment for a period of six months under , simple imprisonment for a period of six months under and simple imprisonment for a period of one year under r/w .

5. As stated earlier, the appeal filed by accused Nos.1 to 6 challenging the afore conviction and sentence ended in dismissal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that, both the trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and have arrived at a wrong conclusion of the guilt against the accused. He argued that the prosecution has not even proved that the thatched hut in which PW1 and PW2 were residing belonged to them and it has come out in evidence that they are residing in a different building than as contended by the prosecution. He further submitted that the material witnesses examined in the case have not positively identified the accused in the dock and their evidence lacks credibility. Henc