Back
2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46784
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
JOY SO FRANCIS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KREALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1698/2002
The case established that credible testimony and timely reporting are crucial in upholding convictions for assaults against public servants.
Headnote:
Intimidation - Public Servant - IPC Sections 353, 506(1) - The court examined the evidence under IPC Sections 353 and 506(1) related to the offense of criminal intimidation against a public servant, ultimately confirming the conviction for the intentional assault to deter from duty.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners were accused of assaulting a public servant who requested identification while processing a residence certificate. They threatened and physically attacked him to deter his official duty.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction for the offense under IPC Section 353, confirming sufficient evidence against the petitioners despite challenges regarding the credibility of the complainant's testimony.
Issues: Whether the evidence supported the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offenses under IPC Sections 353 and 506(1), especially concerning the credibility of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the evidence provided by the complainant, including the timely recording of his statement, sufficiently proved the intimidation and assault against him, justifying the conviction under Section 353.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, confirming the conviction.
O R D E R
The revision petitioners were prosecuted by the Station House Officer, Marangattupally for offence under Section 353 and 506(1) read with 34 IPC with an allegation that at 3.00 pm. On 1.8.1995, while Pw1 Neelakantan was working as a Village Officer at Marangattupally, the revision petitioners approached him for a certificate of residence in respect of the first revision petitioner. Pw1 asked the first revision petitioner to produce ration card or tax receipt in proof of the factum of residence. The revision petitioners got infuriated and insisted for issuing certificate without any proof for which Pw1 was not amenable. Thereupon the revision petitioners criminally intimidated with death and the 2nd revision petitioner caught hold at the neck of Pw1 and fisted at his chest. The first revision petitioner hit Pw1 at his back with a paper weight. Both of them assaulted and intimidated Pw1 with intent to deter Pw1 from discharging his official duty as a public servant.
2. Soon after the incident, Pw1 rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Pala and got admitted there. Intimation was sent to Marangattupalli Police Station from the Primary Health Centre, Pala. A Head Constable attached to the above police station visited the Primary Health Centre and recorded Ext.P1 first information statement given by Pw1 at 6.30 pm. on the same day. On the basis of Ext.P1, a case as Crime No.66/95 was registered for offence under Sec.353 and 506(1) read with 34 IPC. After due investigation a charge sheet was filed against the revision petitioners for the above said offences.
3. The revision petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution Pws.1 to 11 were examined. Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived a finding of guilty. Consequently, each of them were sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,500/- each for offence under Sec.353 and 506(1) r/w.Sec.34 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months each.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioners preferred Crl.Appeal No.111/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The Addl.Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 5.8.2002 arrived a finding that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient enough to find the revision petitioners guilty for offence under Sec.506(1) r/w.34 IPC. Whereas, there is sufficient evidence to convict the revision petitioners for offence under Sec.353 r/w.Sec.34 IPC. Consequently, the conviction and sentence for offences under Sec.506(1) r/w.Sec.34 IPC were set aside and the conviction and sentence for offence under Sec.353 r/w.Sec.34 IPC was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence under Sec.353 r/w.34 IPC as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed.
5. In support of the prosecution case, there is only the oral testimony of Pw1 through which I was taken by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The evidence of Pw1 is corroborated with Ext.P1 first information statement. The courts below had given reliance to the evidence of Pw1 to arrive at a conclusion that the revision petitioners assaulted Pw1, whose status as public servant was not disputed, with intent to deter him from discharge of official duties and are guilty for offence under Sec.353(1) r/w.34 IPC. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Pw1 had stated that on his way to the Primary Health Centre he went to the police station and filed a written complaint. But that was not brought in evidence. In the above circumstance, Ext.P1 is the second complaint and in the absence of the first complaint, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of Pw1 is not at all believable. It is also argued that because of the after-
thought the case might have been developed and that there was a counter-case against Pw1 for assaulting the revision petitioners. However, it is seen that
