ABDUL MAJEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As fallout of a misfired loveaffair, two persons who were not parties in the affair have become the sufferers. Those two were convicted and sentenced u/S. 332 and 342 of the IPC. As the conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal, they have now come in revision. One Beena is the heroine and Jalaludeen is the hero of the romantic adventure. Petitioners are brothers-in-law of Beena (as they have married her elder sisters). Petitioners were charge sheeted by the police on an incident which took place as incidental to the said affair. They were convicted by a judicial magistrate of first class and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months respectively under each count.

(2.) Background of the case is the following : Jalaludeen, who was a divorcee fell in love with Beena. A registered instrument, signed by both, was executed to perpetrate the love affair. But the elders of Beena's family stoutly resisted the affair and they prevented her to be at large. Thereupon, Jalaludeen filed Habeas Corpus petition in this Court in which lst accused was one of the respondents. This Court directed notice to be served on the lst accused through a special messenger. P.W. 1 (peon of the High Court) was deputed for the purpose. On 20-3-1992, P.W. 1 went to the house of the lst accused during noon hours accompanied by one Sivapradad (P.W.2) who is a friend of Jalaludeen. Prosecution version is that both accused together thrashed P.W.1, tore off the notice given by him and took him into a room wherein he was confined for about fifteen minutes. P.W. 1 was rescued only when the police arrived. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged First Information Statement. He was then sent to the local Government Hospital where P.W. 3, Doctor Unnikrishnan, noticed some abrasions on his knee joints and inflamation on the abdomen and chest.

(3.) Prosecution version was spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2. Though other eye witnesses did not support it, the two courts below placed full reliance on their testimony. The defence version is that P.W. 2 went to accused's house along with P.W. 1 for the sinister motive of delivering a letter to Beena who was residing with her sisters in the said house; when the aforesaid design was known to the neighbours they rushed to the scene; they could intercept only P.W. 1 as the other man fled from the scene, lst accused brought the police to the scene. Accused never believed that P.W. 1 was deputed by the High Court. They further said that the entire shape of the story was restructured when police came to know that P.W. 1 was deputed by the High Court to serve a notice on Al.