To establish unlawful assembly under IPC, a minimum of five persons with a common illegal intent must be present, which was not proven in this case.

ORDER

The Revision Petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.417/08 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyoli. They along with three others were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 342, 448, 506(1) and 120B r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the 1st respondent PW1, who is the complainant, a practicing lawyer at Koyilandy, allegedly having his office at Thiruvangoor, was attacked and insulted by the Revision Petitioners along with other accused persons on 7.6.2005 at about 4 p.m. while the de facto complainant was attending his chamber work at his office. The allegation runs that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 along with four other unknown persons entered into his office room without his permission, shouted at PW1 asking where Mr. Gopinath was, the accused in C.C.795/02, a case under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, for whom the 1st respondent was appearing as counsel. They allegedly threatened and attempted to manhandle the 1st respondent/de facto complainant. A3 allegedly asked A4 to close the door. By that time, PW2, one Sri.Davood, who was allegedly sitting in front of the de facto complainant, escaped through the door and A4 allegedly closed the door and bolted it from inside. A1 allegedly compelled the complainant to take his cell phone and call Mr.Gopinath. On refusal, A1 to A4 altogether allegedly pulled him from the chair and criminally intimidated him. At that time, a police jeep was seen parked outside the building. Accused Nos.5 and 6 along with two other Constables from Koyilandy Police Station came into the office room. A5 and A6 allegedly caught hold of the complainant and forced him to enter the back seat of the police jeep and the de facto complainant was taken to the Koyilandy Police Station, where he was made to sit in the verandah for half an hour and was allegedly harassed and threatened by the accused. The reason behind this is to cause production of Sri.Gopinath, who is an accused in C.C.795/02 and against whom a warrant of arrest was pending. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused Nos.1 to 3 are guilty of the offences under Section 143 , 147, 341, 342, 448, 506(1) and 120B r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code . The accused Nos.4 to 6 were found not guilty of any offence. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each for the offence under of IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 147 of and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 342 of and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month; to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each for the offence under Section 448 of and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks; and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 506 (1) of and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, though they had preferred Crl.Appeal No.416/11 before the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode Division, the learned Sessions Judge, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence as such, without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence on various grounds.

3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners are factually unsustainable and illegal. There is no legally sustainable evidence adduced by the prosecution to clinchingly prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The conviction is based on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6. But, the evidence of PW.1 is not credit worthy, but also a self served testimony, which is not legally sufficient to prove the guilt of the Revision Petitioners. The evidence of PWs.2 and 6 is no