MANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX accused persons, who were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam, and whose conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, has challenged the concurrent verdict of conviction in this revision petition. Though, altogether eight accused persons faced trail, A4 and A6 were acquitted by the trial Court. The offences charged against the accused were under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(1) and 427 r/w 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 148 r/w 149 of IPC and also for various terms of imprisonment under other provisions of IPC for which they were convicted. The appellate court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offences under sections 148 and 427 r/w 149 of IPC. Since sentence was awarded for the offence under section 148 r/w 149 of IPC, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under section 147 and 143 r/w 149 of IPC.

(2.) THE gist of the prosecution case is that the accused persons were loading-unloading workers belonging to C.I.T.U. and that they had enmity towards PW1, who is the owner of the tractor-cum-trailer bearing registration no:KL-9-1983, in connection with a dispute regarding loading and unloading of materials from such tractor-trailer. It was stated that the said vehicle of PW1 was fitted with automatic hydraulic system for loading and unloading work, for which the petitioners who were loading and unloading workers objected. Some of them illegally demanded labour charges from PW1. As the accused were causing obstruction to PW1 in the loading and unloading work, PW1 approached this Court and obtained an order for police protection. On 22.07.1998, at about 1.00 p.m., PW2, who was the driver of the said vehicle was stated to have taken the said vehicle to the Mill by name A.P. Brothers situated at Pilathara for taking paddy, therefrom.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though eight accused persons were there, the court below found the case of the prosecution un-reliable in respect of A4 and A6 and so it has to be found that the case projected by the prosecution is, even according to the courts below, only partly true and not wholly true. It is also argued that no identification parade was conducted and there was no proper identification of the accused persons as the actual culprits. There is only an imprecise statement that the petitioners committed rioting and criminal mischief, it is argued. No pointed question was put by the prosecution nor was there any answer by PW2 or PW4 as to the individual or the overt act of any of those accused persons. PW1 has admitted that he was involved in a murder case on the allegation that he had caused the murder of a political opponent. Therefore, the court below should have found that the complaint was filed after three days of the alleged incident, out of political animosity after getting the list of persons who are his political opponents and so the courts below erred in holding the petitioners guilty.