Concurrent convictions under IPC sections were upheld with modified sentencing based on the nature of the offence.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track-III, Thrissur in C.C No.742/2001 and Crl.A No.423/2005 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 447 , 427 and 506(i) I.P.C, are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the first accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with accused Nos.2 to 9, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons, and committed rioting by criminally trespassing into the landed property of PW1, and also by causing destruction to the compound wall in that property resulting in a loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to PW1. The petitioner is further alleged to have criminally intimidated PW1.

3. 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. From the part of the accused, three documents were marked as Exts.D1, D2 series and D3. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully established the commission of offence under Sections 447 , 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C by the accused Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, the petitioner and the other two accused were sentenced to fine Rs.500/- each under Section 447 I.P.C, Rs.2,500/- each under Section 427 I.P.C, and Rs.2,000/- each under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. Default sentences were also provided for non-payment of fine. Though the petitioner and the other two accused challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

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

5. The Courts below placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner and the other two accused criminally trespassed into the property of PW1, and committed mischief by causing destruction to the compound wall, and criminally intimidated PW1. It is true that PW2 is the wife, and PW3 is the son-in-law of PW1. But, the Trial Court, on analysis of the evidence of the above witnesses, held that it is perfectly reliable. The Appellate Court, on a re-appraisal of the evidence, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate. There is absolutely no reason to unsettle the aforesaid findings, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. However, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence involved, and also the pendency of civil suit between the parties, in connection with the same property dispute which gave rise to this offence, I am of the view that the sentence of fine imposed by the Courts below for the offence under Sections 427 I.P.C and 506(ii) I.P.C, is liable to be reduced to Rs.1,000/- each.

Subject to the above modification, the revision petition stands disposed of as follows:

(i) The concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 447 , 427 and

506(ii) I.P.C, are hereby confirmed.

(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the Courts below, a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each is imposed for the offences under Sections 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

(iii) The fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) awarded b