REGHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in Crl.R.P No.2000/2013 is the 1st accused in C.C.No.1558/2003 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Kollam and the revision petitioners in Crl.R.P No.2027/2013 are the accused Nos.2 and 6 in the said case. The three revision petitioners faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 12 hrs. in the night of 4.3.2003 they, along with some others, assembled in front of the house of the defacto complainant Thankamma at Mulenkode as part of a criminal design, and they damaged the entry date, and caused a wrongful loss of 2,000/ - to the said Thankamma. The motive alleged for the said incident is that Thankamma had already preferred a complaint against them in connection with another incident of mischief committed at about 12.00 noon on the same day. Though there were six accused in the crime only these revision petitioners faced trial, but the others absconded at different stages. They pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned Magistrate under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the IPC and under Section 427 IPC r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution examined four witnesses in the trial court and also marked Exts.P1 to P5. The weapons with which the accused allegedly damaged the gate could not be seized during investigation, and so no weapon was produced in court. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. The trial court convicted these revision petitioners. On conviction they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 143 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 147 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 148 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of 1,000/ - each under Section 427 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence these three revision petitioners approached the Court of Session, Kollam. The accused Nos.2 and 6 filed Crl.A No.9/2010 and the 1st accused filed Crl.A No.15/2010. In appeal the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam concurred with the findings of the trial court, and accordingly confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now they are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the incident happened at 12 hrs. in the night of 4.3.2003. The first information statement was given by the defacto complainant Ponnamma, and she gave evidence in the trial court in tune with the statements in the first information statement. PW2 and PW4 are the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, and PW3 is the police officer, who registered the FIR, and investigated the case. PW2 is a person of the locality and he claims to have witnessed the incident on his way back to home, accompanied by PW4. At the very beginning of examination in chief itself PW4 stated that he does not know the place where the incident happened. There is reason to believe that he has no idea regarding the locality. When asked whether he could individually identify each of the accused, he expressed his helplessness.