JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

--------------------------------------

Crl.R.P. NO. 850 of 2016

--------------------------------------

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2026

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 offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, as per the judgment dated 03.07.2009 in C.C. No.431/2006, which was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court, Manjeri, as per judgment dated 29.09.2015 in Crl. Appeal No.201/2009. The revision petitioner is the 1st accused in the said case. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted by the trial court itself.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 14.06.2005 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, demolished the compound wall belonging to the de facto complainant and thereby committed mischief, causing damage amounting to Rs. 500/-. Thereafter, the accused criminally trespassed into the compound of the de facto complainant's house. It is further alleged that the first accused threatened the de facto complainant by brandishing a sickle and thereby put her in fear of death. The accused also wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and her daughter. The first accused is further alleged to have caught hold of the hair of the de facto complainant's daughter, pulled her to the ground, and dragged her. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against them in evidence. From the side of the defence, no evidence whatsoever was produced.

4. Finally, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, found the 1st accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC and convicted him. The 1st accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the 1st accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. For the offence punishable under section 341 of the IPC, the first accused was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of the payment of the fine, the 1st accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. The 2nd and the 3rd accused were acquitted.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the first accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.201/2009 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the first accused has preferred this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and also perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is wholly innocent of the allegations levelled against him and that both the trial court and the appellate court convicted the first accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution's case itself reveals the existence of a property dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused and, therefore, the trial court or the appellate court ought to have taken into account the possibility of false implication. It was further contended that the evidence of PW1 ought to have been scrutinized with greater care and caution. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted