The conviction under IPC Sections 447 and 324 was upheld, albeit with a modified sentence reducing imprisonment.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, and the Additional Sessions Court (ADHOC),Fast Track, Thrissur, in C.C.No.1116/2001 and Crl.Appeal No.904/2005 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 447 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 26.07.2001 at about 5.00 p.m, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the residence of PW2, and inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 by hitting with a wooden log and biting upon his right forefinger and right forearm. The second petitioner is also alleged to have wrongfully restrained PW1. With regard to the above incident, the Sub Inspector of Police, Peechi, filed the Final Report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 447, 341 and

324 IPC r/w Section 34 .

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, eight witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW8, and three documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P3. From the part of the accused, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 324 IPC r/w Section 34 . Accordingly, the petitioners were sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months each under Section 447 , Simple Imprisonment for one month each under Section 341 , and Simple Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 324 . In the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court, Thrissur, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III (ADHOC), who considered the appeal, found that the offence under Section 341 is not brought out in evidence. However, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Sections 447 and 324 r/w Section 34 , were upheld by the Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.

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

5. Among the three witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW3, PW1, the injured, testified before the Trial Court in clear and consistent terms about the criminal acts attributed against the petitioners. However, PW2 and PW3 did not fully support the prosecution case. Arguments were advanced before the Trial Court as well as before the Appellate Court to the effect that PW1 had attempted to assault the first accused in an inebriated stage, and that the acts done by the petitioners in self defence have been termed as the criminal offences alleged in this case. A further contention was also raised before the courts below that the delay of about two days in lodging the First Information Statement would defeat the sanctity of the prosecution case. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3, who did not fully support the prosecution case, were also relied on by the defence in support of their contention that the petitioners are not liable to be proceeded against for the offences alleged against them. All those challenges have been repelled by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court on the basis of sound judicial reasons. There is absolutely no reason for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings on facts of the courts below, arrived at by relying on the evidence on records. Needless to say, the conviction of the petitioner for the commission of the offences under Sections 447 and 324 IPC by the Appellate Court, is not liable to be unsettled in this revision. However, having