BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in C.C. No. 850/90 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur is the revision petitioner. He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence of two months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner challenged conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A.No. 275/94. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after reappraising the evidence modified the conviction for the offence to one under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/-. Conviction arid sentence for the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act was confirmed. It is being challenged in this revision.

(2.) Charge against petitioner was that on 7.3.1988 at about 7.30 a.m. while PW1 Narayanan a member of Pulaya community was taking tea from the shop of PW2, petitioner came there with a wooden stick and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating with a wooden stick and before beating petitioner asked question to PW1 as to why he scolded his brother some days back and also asked PW1 why members of Pulaya community are now behaving like members of upper caste and thereby committed the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. and Section 7(1)(d) of the Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P4. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. On this evidence learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. Revision petitioner is challenging the conviction and sentence as modified by the Sessions Judge on the ground that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence in the light of provisions of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that in the light of appreciation of evidence and finding entered on the question of fact and as petitioner has already deposited fine awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he is not challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and challenge is limited to conviction for the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act.

(3.) Heard Adv.Mr.V. Ramkumar Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor.