AJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners under Sections 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

(2.) 5 accused persons faced indictment for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. The trial court found all of them guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for various terms. The lower appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence of the 5th accused. The conviction and sentence of the others under Sections 143, 147 and 148 I.P.C were also set aside. 4 accused persons, ie. accused 1 to 4 were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Sections 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The sentences imposed under Sections 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C were confirmed. The appellants now face a sentence of R.I for a period of 3 years under Section 307 I.P.C and 2 years under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. Even though they have been found guilty and convicted under Section 341 I.P.C, no separate sentence is seen imposed under Section 341 I.P.C.

(3.) This revision petition is preferred by accused 2 and 4. Accused 1 and 3, it is submitted at the Bar, preferred a revision petition and another Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 18.03.2009 in Crl. R.P. No. 701 of 2001, had dismissed the revision petition filed by them upholding the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. It surprises me to note that along with the said revision petition, this revision petition was not taken up for consideration. The Registry or the counsel for the revision petitioners do not appear to have brought to the notice of the learned Judge the fact of pendency of this revision petition. It would also appear, from a reading of the judgment, that the learned Judge was under the impression that that revision petition was preferred by all the 4 convicts/accused together.