The appellate court upheld the conviction based on sufficient identification evidence despite the appellant's absence during witness testimonies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TH WEDNESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4241 OF 2007 IN Crl.A NO.570 OF 2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.362 OF 2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

ALOLLATHIL ABBAS ALOLLATHIL HOUSE, TUNERI AMSOM DESOM,, TUNERI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER NADAPURAM.

2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR PP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyoli, and the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in C.C.No.362/2005 and Crl.Appeal No.570/2006 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 143 , 148 and 332 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short ‘PDPP Act’), are under challenge in this revision. The petitioner herein was arraigned as the second accused in the aforesaid case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 15.01.2001 at about 5.45 p.m., while the police party headed by PW5 was conducting law and order patrol duty within the limits of Nadapuram Police Station, the petitioner herein, along with 100 others, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with dangerous weapons, and committed rioting by pelting stones into the police vehicle in which PW5 and his team were travelling, causing loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the Government in addition to causing injuries to PW5 and the other police officials.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, 11 witnesses were examined from the part of prosecution as PW1 to PW11, and 14 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P14. The petitioner did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

4. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioner, along with the other accused, committed the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 148 and 332 IPC r/w Section 149 , and Section 3 (1) of the PDPP Act. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the commission of offence under Section 143 , Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence under Section 148 and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence under Section 332 . He was further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the commission of offence under (1) of the PDPP Act with a default clause of Simple Imprisonment for three months. The learned Magistrate further directed the substantial sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.

5. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and accordingly dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below committed grave error