GIGI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramankary Police Station, in Crime No. 76 of 1996, prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Ramankary, accusing offences under Sections 341, 323, and 354 IPC with an allegation that at 11 a.m., on 15.9.1996, the revision petitioner wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant at Cherikalakam padasekharam. She was caught at her hands, slapped at face, fisted on back and kicked on the stomach. When the defacto complainant attempted to run away she was caught at her blouse and the blouse was torn. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Exts. P1 to P5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating evidence and further stated that the vegetation of the revision petitioner was destroyed by the goats of the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1. When he drove away the goats, PW1 and another assaulted him and that the case was falsely foisted against him. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding that the prosecution had succeeded to establish offences under Sections 323 and 354 IPC and no offence under Section 341 IPC was established. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 354 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,0007- under Section 323 IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs. 500/- was ordered to be paid to PW1 as compensation. For offence under Section 341 IPC, the revision petitioner was acquitted.

(2.) Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A. No. 190 of 1998 before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc -1), Alappuzha, to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 26.3.2002, 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.

(3.) I have heard Smt. Indu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Ms.Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. Perused the judgment impugned and the evidence on record.