K.V.JABBAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners 1 and 2 were accused 1 and 2 in CC No. 626 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur. The offences alleged against the revision petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, " IPC "). By the judgment dated 30.11.2005, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court convicted and sentenced accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC. They were acquitted for the offence under Section 294(b) r/w Section 34 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, accused 1 and 2 were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days more. For the offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, accused 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 2 preferred Crl.Appeal No. 677 of 2005 before the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. By judgment dated 29.09.2010, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is herein below: On 26.11.2002 at 10.30 pm, accused 1 and 2 along with the 3rd accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained PW1 in front of Marjan Bakery at Kallurikkadavu and the 1st accused abused him in filthy language causing annoyance to him and thereafter, slapped at his face, and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323 , 294b r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) During the trial of the case, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P3 on the prosecution side. When the case came up for questioning the accused under Section 313(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, " Cr.P.C ."), the 3rd accused did not appear before the court. Pursuant to the warrant, it was reported that he had absconded. Hence, the case against him was split up and the trial was proceeded as against accused 1 and 2 alone. On being questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., accused 1 and 2 denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence as against them. However, no defence evidence was adduced.