KAVIRAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No.1213/06 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Punalur. He was charge sheeted and prosecuted for the offences punishable under Secs.452, 323, 324 and 427 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, he was found guilty of the said offences and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months under Sec.452 read with Sec.34 Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sec.324 read with Sec.34 Indian Penal Code. No separate sentences are imposed for the offences punishable under Secs.323 and 427 read with Sec.34 IPC. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he had preferred Appeal No.70/11 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-II, Kollam. After re- appreciating the evidence on records, the appellate court also confirmed the conviction entered and the sentences imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 19/8/06 at 11.30 p.m. the revision petitioner along with two others trespassed into the house of P.W.1 bearing No.YP-14/365, the 1st accused caught on the neck of P.W.1 and pushed him down. Thereafter, he inflicted injuries on both hands and back of P.W.1 using a knife. The 2nd accused beat him with a stick on various parts of his body and the 3rd accused kicked him. Thereafter, the 2nd accused destroyed the tube light fitted in the sit out of the house using a stick causing a loss of Rs.50/-. The accused were allegedly acting in furtherance of their common intention. Thus, they have committed the offences alleged against them.

(3.) THE only question emerges for consideration of this Court under the revisional jurisdiction is whether there is any illegality, impropriety or perversity in the impugned judgment? P.Ws.1 to 3 are the occurrence witnesses. Among them, P.W.2 turned hostile. P.W.1 is the injured who has given Ext.P1 First Information Statement. He deposed that he sustained injuries during the incident which occurred on 19/8/06 at 11.30 p.m. at his house. He along with P.W.3 and his daughter were in the house. At about 10 O' clock they went to sleep. At 11.30 p.m. somebody knocked at the door and called him for unloading sand. When he opened the door, the 1st accused caught hold of his neck and inflicted injury upon his left hand with a knife. He sustained injuries on three places. The 1st accused inflicted injury on the back side below the right shoulder. The 2nd accused beat on various parts of his body with a stick and he sustained pain. The 3rd accused kicked below his stomach and he sustained pain. He cried and ran away. P.W.2 and his daughter also cried. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 destroyed the tube lights and bulb using sticks by which he sustained a loss of Rs.60/-. After the commission of the offence, the accused went away with the weapons. He could identify the knife and stick. The knife was having a length of 1.5 feet and the stick was having a length of 4 feet. The accused are persons with whom the de facto complainant has acquaintance since last so many years; but not in good terms. So, he identified the accused. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are none other than the son-in-law and son respectively of the 1st accused.