AZZI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petitioner is the accused in CC. No. 791/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva as well as the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 932/2008 on the files of Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), N. Paravur. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 109 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was found not guilty for the offence under Section 506(1) of the IPC. Though, he had preferred the above appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence as such without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence. It is the case of the prosecution that the Revision Petitioner along with the other accused entered into the private bus stand with a sword in his hand and caused an alarming situation in the bus stand by brandishing the sword and threatened the passengers that he would stab each of them to death. The other accused also shouted and intimidated the people gathered in the bus stand as passengers and openly abetted the Revision Petitioner to stab them to death. Thus the Revision Petitioner along with other accused committed the offence alleged against them. In this Revision petition, the counsel for the Revision Petitioner has raised three contentions. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Revision Petitioner was found not guilty under Section 506(1) of the IPC. Therefore, the allegation of intimidation stands not proved. So he cannot be further convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The second contention is that the prosecution had no case that he had used the sword so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 5(1) of the Arms Act. There is no evidence to show that the sword was put in usage. Therefore he cannot be found guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Coming to the evidence, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exts. P1 to P3 and MO 1 sword. No evidence was adduced by the accused. There were three occurrence witnesses; among them P.Ws. 1 to 3 are police officers who arrested the accused from the place of occurrence. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are independent witnesses who turned hostile. PW 1, one of the police officers who arrested the accused from the spot deposed that on 19.6.2001 at 5.30 pm, the police received an information stating that two persons were seen standing in the Aluva private bus stand with a sword in hand and the accused was seen threatening the public by brandishing the sword and thereby causing an alarming situation in the private bus stand. Thereupon, PW 1 along with P.Ws. 2 and 3 reached the private bus stand and they saw the accused with MO 1 sword in his hand and threatening the passengers. He further deposed that, one person was found threatening passengers by brandishing sword held in his hand and other person was found openly instigating the former to stab passengers to death. On seeing the police they made an attempt to ran away from the place. But, he caught hold of him and seized the sword held in his hand. P.Ws. 2 and 3 who accompanied PW 1 also deposed in the same way in consonance with the evidence of PW 1. After considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 the trial court found that the evidence of PW 1 is well corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. PW 1 who seized the sword identified the same before the trial court also. Their evidence further gets assurance from Exts. P1 to P3 as prosecution documents prepared contemporaneously at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of MO 1 sword. The accused has no case that P.Ws. 1 to 3 had some grudge or animosity towards him so as to book him in a false case. There is no circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the trial court found that nothing brought out in evidence to discredit the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in their cross examination.

(3.) In appeal, the appellate court also re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the findings of conviction and sentence. The revisional jurisdiction is a paternal jurisdiction intended to correct the illegality or impropriety committed by the inferior courts. When there is no illegality or impropriety in the findings arrived at by the trial court or appellate court, this Court is not inclined to re-appreciate the entire evidence once again. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the court below so also there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence from which those findings have been arrived.