SREEJITH, S/O. SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVEN accused persons who were concurrently held guilty and convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448 , 427 and 435 IPC read with Sec. 149 I.P.C., are the petitioners herein. 11 accused persons faced trial before the learned Magistrate. Out of them accused Nos. 8 to 11 were found not guilty and were acquitted by the trial Court. This Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 11-2-1998 at about 5.30 p.m. the petitioners along with so many other persons belonging to a major political party formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing trespass into the residential house of P.W1 and P.W2, and after trespassing into the residential house destroyed the house-hold articles like tables, chairs, phones, sewing machine, fans, and so many other items and also destroyed the windows, doors and roof tiles. Further they also set fire to the cattle shed adjacent to the residential house mentioned above and destroyed the same causing burn injuries to the cattle. According to the prosecution, the act of the accused caused a loss of about Rs. 1,00,000.00 to P.W.1 and P.W.2. Ext.P1, the F.I. statement was given by P.W.1 based on which the F.I.R. was registered . After conducting investigation the charge-sheet was laid against 11 accused persons mentioned above. P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. MO1 series the broken pieces of tiles,chairs, fridges, fans etc,. were also identified and marked.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the mother and daughter respectively. Though the incident took place on 5.30 p.m. on 11-2-1998 the first information statement was given by P.W.1 only at 11.55 a.m. on 12-2-1998. According to the petitioners, Ext.P1 was lodged by P.W.1 after thorough deliberation, especially, because the workers of the political party to which P.W.1's brother was having allegiance had visited the house of P.W.1. It is also stated that P.W.4 the independent witness did not support the prosecution. It was not possible P.W.3 to see the incident and so his evidence is to be disbelieved. Since P.Ws 1 and 2, on seeing the accused trespassing into the house, left that house and went to the neighbouring house it was not possible for P.W.1 and P.W.2 to identify any of the assailants, It i further contended. The argument proceeds further stating that the names of these petitioners were furnished as supplied by the leaders of the other political party to which P.W.1 and P.W.2 belong. It is strenuously contended that the petitioners were not properly identified so as to fix the criminal liability on them. It is further contended that so far as the role of the 7th accused is concerned, there is inconsistent version and that P.W.1 did not even identify the 7th accused. The further argument that is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the compensation directed to be awarded by the court below is excessive and disproportionate since the value of the articles alleged to have been destroyed was not assessed properly.