A revisional court shall not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice; conviction for assaulting public servants requires proof that the incident occurred during the discharge of official duties.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, and 506(ii) of the IPC by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha, as per judgment dated 12.06.2015 in C.C. No.733/2010, which was partly confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thodupuzha, by judgment dated 20.09.2017 in Crl. Appeal No.107/2015. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused was allegedly nurturing animosity towards PW1, who was working as a Head Constable attached to the Karimannoor Police Station. While so, the wife of the accused approached the Karimannoor Police Station with a complaint alleging ill-treatment and harassment by the accused. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police deputed PW1 to enquire into the matter, and PW2, a Woman Police Constable attached to the same station, accompanied him. According to the prosecution, when PW1 and PW2 reached the residence of the accused pursuant to the direction issued by the Sub Inspector, they found the accused attempting to assault his wife. When PW1 and PW2 intervened, the accused allegedly assaulted them and thereby deterred them from discharging their official duties. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him in evidence. Thereafter, the accused was called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. However, three documents produced by the defence were marked as Exts.D1 to D3.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, and 506(ii) of the IPC and convicted him accordingly. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506(ii) IPC.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.107/2015 before the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed the same in part and modified the findings as well as the sentence imposed on the accused. The conviction and sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC were set aside. However, the finding of the trial court that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 332 and 353 IPC was confirmed. The sentence was modified, and the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, the accused has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition.

6. Heard Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, and Sri. G. Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor. The records w