SAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No. 386/1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha in Crime No. 26/1994 prosecuted the revision petitioner and two others (accused 2 and 3) alleging offence under Sections 448 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Sections 448 and 353 IPC. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 353 IPC, and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 448 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one and a half months. Accused 2 and 3 were found not guilty and acquitted. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner preferred Crl. A. No. 61/1998 before the Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. By judgment dated 7.1.2002 the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is preferred. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.1.1984, PW1, who is the Inspector of Co-operative Societies, was functioning as a Polling Officer and had been conducting the election to the Ezhalloor Milk Producers Society. The father of the revision petitioner had submitted a nomination to contest as a candidate in the election. But the nomination was rejected. Being got ill motivated, the revision petitioner along with other accused and certain other persons in furtherance of their common intention committed criminal trespass to the polling booth at 10.45 a.m. while the election process was in progress, and the revision petitioner snatched away the ballot box wherein 13 ballots were inserted after casting vote. The ballot box was thrown out to the public road in front of the booth and ran out. From there the revision petitioner and others took away the ballot box and fled from the scene in an auto rickshaw despite the attempt of PW1 and the police personnel on duty to prevent it and the election had to be postponed and thereby committed criminal trespass to the polling booth and deterred PW1 from discharging his official duty as the Polling Officer.

(2.) On the basis of Ext. P1 First Information Statement given by PW1, the case was registered for which Ext. P3 First Information Report was prepared. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the trial court. The revision petitioner and the other accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore they were sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 9 were examined and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner and others were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner took up a defence that the Secretary of the Society, who was examined as PW2, had got previous enmity and therefore he was falsely implicated. No defence evidence was adduced. On appraisal of the evidence, the trial court arrived at a conclusion of guilty, conviction and sentence as mentioned above.

(3.) I have heard Sri. Bindhu. R, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the judgments of the courts below.