The High Court does not re-appraise evidence unless findings are grossly erroneous in revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C.

O R D E R

In this revision petition, the revision petitioner assails the judgment in Crl.A No.203/2017 of Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, by which it confirmed the conviction and sentence against him in C.C.No.271/2016 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothattukulam, for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 354A(1)(ii) and 509 of IPC .

2. Prosecution case is that, on 24.6.2016 at 7.30 pm at Manikunnu, Elanji Kara, accused, who is a neighbour of PW1 to PW3, trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW1 and uttered abusive words against PW1 to PW3 and exhibited his private parts. He also made demand for sexual favours to PW1 to PW3.

3. Pursuant to the complaint laid by PW1, crime was registered by PW7, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Koothattukulam. After completing the investigation, PW8 laid final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for the offences punishable under Sections

447, 354A(1)(ii) and 509 IPC .

4. Accused abjured guilt and faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothattukulam.

5. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P5. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty under Sections 447 , 354A(1)(ii) and 509 of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of ₹1,500/- under Section 509 . In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. For the offence under Section 354A (1)(ii) he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the offence under Section 447 , he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. The learned Magistrate also directed that the sentence of imprisonment shall run consecutively.

7. From the judgment of conviction and sentence, though the accused preferred appeal as Crl.A No.203/2017 before the Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.

8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused has preferred this revision contending that the trial court and the appellate court erred in appreciating the evidence; that none of the ingredients of the offences under Sections 447 , 354A(1)(ii) and 509 IPC have been proved against the accused and therefore, the conviction and sentence against him are liable to be set aside by allowing the revision.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings in the impugned judgment and argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence against the accused; that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and the revision petition is devoid of any merit.

10. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants any interference by this Court.

11. On account of the absence of the counsel who filed the revision petition, this Court appointed Advocate Suhail.M as amicus curiae to assist the court.

12. It is no longer res integra that in a revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when it has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal unless it is shown that the finding is perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or where the decision is based on no materials or where the judici