The court upheld conviction based on substantial evidence for unlawful assembly and related offenses under IPC.

ORDER

Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.436/1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. They were convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 452, and 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

2. The sentence awarded was Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 143 IPC , Rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 147 , Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 148 , Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 452 and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 324 r/w Section 149 . The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Though the petitioners preferred appeals before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, who considered their appeals, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and accordingly, confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. However, it was made clear in the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court that if the petitioners are undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life in any other case, the sentence of imprisonment awarded in this case shall run concurrently with such sentence of life imprisonment.

4. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the petitioners are here with this revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with 15 other persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, at about 1.30 a.m. on 16.01.1995 and mounted physical assault upon PW1 and PW2 in prosecution of their common object, after criminally trespassing to the residence of PW1. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with other accused, used sword, pipe, etc., to inflict voluntary hurt upon PW1 and PW2.

7. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, six witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW6, and seven documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P7.

8. It is after evaluating the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the offences mentioned above. The Appellate Court made a reappraisal of the evidence, and found that the findings of the learned Magistrate, are not liable to be interfered with. However, the Appellate Court observed that the sentence awarded in this case, shall run concurrently, if the petitioners are already undergoing life imprisonment in any other cases.

9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW5 for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. The fact that PW1 had given evidence in a consistent manner, and that PW2 and PW5 also adduced evidence in consonance with the version of PW1, have been taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, for arriving at the finding that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offence. The medical evidence pertaining to the injuries sustained by PW1 are also taken note of by the courts below.

10. Having regard to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, and also taking into account the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of the courts below, are not liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioners can only fail.

In the result, the revision petition stands dismi