The court clarified the legal definitions surrounding unlawful assembly and house trespass, affirming that a police station qualifies under house trespass laws, thus holding the culpable party accountable.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

1. The appellants were accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 877 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. They are aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by judgment dated 29.04.2019. As per the impugned judgment, the appellants have been found guilty for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 452 r/w section 149, 323 r/w section 149, 332 r/w section 149, 294(b) r/w section 149, 354 r/w section 149 apart from section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'PDPP Act'). The maximum sentence of five years was imposed for the offence under section 452 IPC and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution alleged that a group of people under the leadership of the 1^st accused, created public nuisance at 9.15 pm on 16.08.2009 at Vazhichal junction in connection with an election to the Service Co- operative Bank at Ottasekharamangalam. The prosecution alleged that after the above incident, at 9.45 pm on the same day, under the leadership of the 1st accused, a group of people numbering to fourteen, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly. Thereafter, in prosecution of their common object, they trespassed into the Aryancode police station and committed rioting, armed with deadly weapons. In that process, the accused caused hurt to the policemen on duty, apart from outraging the modesty of a woman Police Constable, who was on sentry duty. The accused also shouted obscene words, while accused 2 and 3 attempted to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder on PW2 by kicking on his vital parts which if not warded off, would have resulted in his death. The accused restrained PW9 and damaged his name plate and whistle chord, apart from damaging the chairs and the collapsible grill gate of the police station, thereby causing a loss of Rs.15,000/- to the Government and thus committed the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 332, 308, 294(b), 354 and 427 IPC, apart from sections 3(1) of the PDPP Act.

3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P14 were marked while the defence examined DW1 to DW5 and marked Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D3. MO1 was also marked on behalf of the prosecution.

4. During the course of trial, the 5^th accused died and the proceedings against him abated. The trial court, after analysing the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that accused 4 and 6 to 14 were not guilty, while accused 1 to 3 were guilty of the offences, except under section 308 IPC.

5. Sri. S. Rajeev and Sri. V. Vinay, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the entire prosecution allegations are without any basis and hence the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PW1 and other witnesses ought to have been discarded by the trial court as they were all interested witnesses and in the absence of any independent witness, the court ought not to have relied upon their evidence to arrive at a finding of guilt on the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that the crime was registered with a political motive and the 1^st appellant, who was the Vice-President of the Panchayat, was targeted by the police with ulterior motives and further that the benefit of doubt oug