Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11350
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
AZHUVATH YAVUTTYSO KUNJIMUHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 710/2002
In mass assault cases, the totality of witness testimonies can establish identity and culpability despite individual actions not being specifically detailed.
Headnote:
Revison - Criminal Conviction - IPC Section List - The court confirmed the conviction of accused under IPC for active participation in unlawful assembly, physical assault and property damage, while acquitting others due to lack of evidence against them.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with various offences stemming from a mob attack on the house of the complainant, resulting in injuries and property damage, arising from an incident involving approximately 500 individuals.
Issues: Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused based on witness testimonies and evidence provided during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that in cases involving mass assaults, the credibility of witnesses must be assessed holistically rather than by individual actions, leading to the confirmation of convictions for those identified.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed in part; convictions against accused 1 to 4 and 17 are upheld, while those against accused 6 and 7 are overturned.
O R D E R
Revision petitioners are accused 1 to 4, 6, 7 and
17 in C.C.No.75/1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi. The Station House Officer, Thirurangadi Police Station in Crime No.220/1992, filed a final report against 17 persons accusing offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 and 427 read with 149 IPC. All accused except 10, 12 and 16 responded to the process. Since A10, A12 and A16 reported absconding, the case against them was split up and the other accused were sent for trial.
2. They pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 12 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P9 and MOs 1 to 5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating evidence and took a plea of total innocence. Though they were called upon to enter their defence, no defence evidence was let in. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the offences alleged against all the accused who faced the trial. Consequently, they were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offences under Section 143 and 427 IPC. For offences under Sections 148 and 324 IPC, they were sentenced to rigorous imprison for six months each. For offence under Section 452 IPC they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence was awarded for offences under Section 147 and 323 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused were further directed to pay Rs.1,500/- each to PWs 1 to 6. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence they preferred Crl.Appeal 3/1996 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. By the impugned judgment dated 25/5/2002, the appeal was allowed in part. In the operative portion, it is recorded that the conviction and sentence as against accused 5 to 9, 11 and 13 to 15 are set aside and the conviction and sentence as against accused 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 17 are confirmed. Later in a letter dated 12/7/2002, it is stated that the conviction and sentence as against accused 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 17 are confirmed, but by mistake it is mentioned that the sentence as against accused 6 and 7 were also set aside.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that at 7.30 P.M. on 7/12/1992, about 500 persons including the
17 accused persons named in the final report trespassed into the house of PW1. PW1, who was sitting at the varantha, was dragged out and was assaulted. The assailants then entered the house, damaged the doors and windows. PW4, the wife of PW1 and their children, who were examined as PWs 2, 3, 5 and 6, were also hurt. The household utensils were thrown out and were damaged. Being got scared, PWs 1 to 6 ran out of the house and took shelter in an open compound. Later, the police party rescued them and admitted in the hospital. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement given by PW1, the case was registered. After completing the investigation, PW12, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police submitted the charge sheet.
4. I have heard Smt. M. Remanya Gayathri, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Miss. Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. The judgments of the Courts below were perused. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 who are the injured and the occurrence witnesses.
5. Going by the testimony of PWs 1 to 6, I find that PW1 had identified accused 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 10. PW2 had identified accused 1 to 4, 8, 9, 12 and 15. PW3 had identified accused 1 to 4, 8, 6 and 10. PW4 had identified accused 1 to 4, 5 and 13. PW5 had identified accused 1 to 4, 8, 14 and 15. PW6 had identified accused 2, 4, 15 and 17. PW7, who is an independent witness had also deposed about the occurrence. He had identified accused 1, 2 and 15. But had not given evidence implicating any of the accused.
6. According to PW1, he was pulled out by the first accused. The 2nd and the 3
