Convictions can be upheld based on sufficient evidence even in the absence of specific ownership documentation, emphasizing the importance of witness testimony in criminal cases.

O R D E R

~~~~~~~

The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi in C.C.No.640 of 1994 found the revision petitioners, who are accused 1, 2, 4 and 5, guilty for offences under Sections 143 , 147, 341, 355, 447, 427 and 324 read with 149 IPC . Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 , six months each under Section 147 , 355, 427 and 324 and two months under Section 447 . No separate sentence for offence under Section 143 was awarded. Though they were also prosecuted for offence under Section 148 , they were found not guilty and acquitted. In Crl.A.No. 36 of 1997, the Sessions Judge, Manjeri, found that since the prosecution failed to produce the wound certificate in proof of the injuries sustained by PWs 2 and 3, the conviction for offences under Sections 324 and 355 are not liable, whereas the prosecution had succeeded to prove offences under , 147, 341, 447 and 427 . However, the learned Sessions Judge was lenient in reducing the sentence to a fine of Rs.500/- each for each offences with a default sentence for simple imprisonment for one month each on each count and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 427 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this Revision Petition is preferred.

2. I have heard Smt.Sheeja, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms.Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. The judgments impugned and the evidence of PW2 were perused.

3. The main argument that was advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is no document produced in support of the plea of the defacto complainant that the property, where the revision petitioners trespassed, and the compound wall, which was said to have been demolished, were belonging to PW2. Critically going through the evidence of PW3, she had in unambiguous terms deposed that the property and the compound wall belongs to her and that the revision petitioners trespassed into the property and demolished the compound wall. In cross examination, there is not even a suggestion that the property does not belong to PW2 or that the compound wall was not constructed by her. In the above circumstance, I am not inclined to accept the persuasive argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Going though the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5, I find that, regarding the unlawful assembly, trespass and mischief, there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge. The Sessions Judge was very lenient in reducing the sentence to fine. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the sentence also. The Sessions Judge was also correct in awarding compensation to PW2.

4. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision petitioners are granted one month time to remit the fine. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

ps/28/9 P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

O R D E R

28.9.2012