ORDER

Revision petitioners were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal U/s. 143, 147, 341 225B, 426, and 353 r/w. 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods under the above Sections. The sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court. The appeal filed was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. Challenging the above judgment, the accused preferred this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 17.11.1992 at 9 a.m.

the Preventive Officer and party attached to Chirayinkeezhu Excise Range conducted a search in the shop of the 5th accused at Pulimootu Kadavu in Pandakassala and seized a plastic container containing 10 litres of illicit arrack and arrested the 5th accused from there. The relatives of the 5th accused and others gathered there, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, Accused 1 to 4 forcibly taken the 5th accused from the custody of the Excise party and 1st accused kicked PW1, 2nd accused snatched the plastic container from PW1, accused 3 and 4 assaulted and torn the uniform of PW1 and accused 1 to 7 managed to escape the 5th accused from the lawful custody of PW1. On the basis of information, Chirayinkeezhu Police registered the above crime and after investigation laid charge in the trial court.

3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P6. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the revision petitioners, while questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Exts.D1 and D2 were marked, while examination of PW2. The trial court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the court below.

4. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the court below? If so, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below U/s. 143, 147, 341 225 (b), 426, 353 r/w. 149 IPC are sustainable in law?

5. The structure of the prosecution case was erected on the basis of oral testimony of the the Preventive Officers attached to the Excise Range Office, Chirayinkeezhu, who conducted a search in the shop of the 5th accused on 17.11.1992. According to PW1, the excise party seized 10 litres of illicit arrack from the shop of A5 after preparing a mahazar, at that time, accused 1 to 4 restrained them and after assaulting them they took the arrack from their custody and they torn the uniform of PW1 while he was on his official duty. For this incident, PW1 gave Ext.P1 statement to the Chirayinkeezhu Police and deposed that 1st accused kicked on his abdomen. PW2 also supported the evidence of PW1 and deposed that he was present there at the time of raid. According to him, a white Kannas was recovered and colour of the lid was black. The denied portion of statement of this witness was marked as Exts.D1 and D2.

6. PW3 who is an occurrence witness deposed that the Excise party took two kannas containing illicit arrack from the shop of the 5th accused at that time the accused obstructed the Excise party and the 1st accused assaulted PW1 and the 4th accused called obscene words towards PW1. According to him, they seized a black kannas from that shop. PW4 the Preventive Officer supported the evidence of PW1. He deposed that on 17.11.1992, he got information that the 5th accused was selling arrack in her shop, immediately, he reached at the shop and seized black kannas with arrack. When they proceeded 15 feets, the accused forcefully seized the kannas and 1st accused assaulted PW1, torn the uniform and permitted the 5th accused to escape from the official custody. Even though these witnesses deposed so, no evidence has been adduced by them to show that PW1 sustained any injury in the incident. Ext.P4 is the wound certificate issued by PW7, it shows that there was complaint of pain in lower abdomen. No i