STATE OF KERALA Vs. KOCHAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Kochan a Harijan and his wife Thankamma were convicted by the Chowghat First Class Magistrate under section 453 read with Section 34, 1. P. C. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - and the second accused was ordered to be released after due admonition. In appeal the conviction was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur. The State has appealed against the order of acquittal. P. W. 1 Venkitarama Iyer and his wife Swarnambal (P. W. 2) were in possession of a building in Panthra Paramba which was used by them for storing manure and agricultural implements. The building was locked up and the key was with P. W. 1. The prosecution case is that at 6 -30 A. M. on 19 -5 -1959 the first accused broke into the house and together with his wife occupied the building.

(2.) THE two accused denied the offence. The second accused in the statement filed by her contended that she was permitted to live in the house by P. Ws. 1 and 2 on payment of Rs. 22/ - and that she had improved the building which was dilapidated. According to her the case is only an attempt to evict her from the building without resorting to the civil court. The first accused while supporting the second accused's case added that he was looking after the Parana and some amounts were due to him from P. W. 1 as remuneration. He further stated that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in a criminal case filed against him by P. W. 1 and when he came out of the jail he found his wife in occupation of the building.

(3.) THE learned appellate Judge has not adverted to the evidence in the case nor did he express any doubt regarding the correctness of the learned Magistrate's findings. He simply made short -work of the appeal by acquitting the accused on the ground that it is neither alleged nor proved that the entry into the house by the accused was with the intent to intimidate insult or annoy P. Ws. 1 and 2, the persons in occupation. The learned Public Prosecutor's argument that the intention to annoy could be presumed from the evidence was repelled and in support of the position taken by him the learned Judge relied upon a portion picked out from Ratanlal's Law of Crimes, in the commentary on Section 441 without apparently making any attempt to see whether the decisions cited therein can properly be applied to the facts of the case before him.