PODIPENNU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners were accused Nos. 2 to 8 in C.C. No. 854/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Adoor. The 2nd accused is the mother, the 7th accused the wife and the 3rd accused an aunt of the 1st accused. The other accused, probably except the 8th accused, are their relatives. PW1, PW2, PW5 to PW7 are the victims in the case. PW2 is father, PW5 mother, PW6 sister and PW7 wife of PW1. These witnesses and the accused 1 to 7 are relatives. There was a dispute between them over a pathway. It is alleged that on 22.06.2000 at about 7.30 am on the pathway in front of the house of the 1st accused and others, the accused assaulted the victims. PW2 sustained fracture of the ribs when he was allegedly struck with a twig by the first accused. PW1 sustained an injury on the right eyebrow when he was allegedly struck with a chopper by the 1st accused. Some accused are said to have assaulted the victims with hands. The specific allegation against the 5th accused is that he threw a stone at PW5 Kunjupennu causing an injury on her lower lip. As the first accused was absconding, only the other accused were tried. Learned Magistrate found them guilty of the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC r/w. Section 34 of the Code. For the offence under Section 326 IPC, each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. No sentence was imposed for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The conviction and the sentence were challenged in Crl.Appeal No. 127/2012. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence. Accused 2 to 8 questioned the legality of their conviction and sentence in these four revision petitions.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is a concurrent finding of fact by the trial court and the appellate court and it is not proper for this Court to reappreciate the evidence as if it were an appeal. I have no doubt that the scope of enquiry in a revision petition is limited. In the decision in Sanjaysingh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke,2015 CurCriR 267(SC)] relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor the Supreme Court has considered the powers of the revisional court. It is well settled that if the decision sought to be revised is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where decision is based on no material or where material facts are wholly ignored or where judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously the revisional court can interfere. I shall examine the facts of the case in the light of the said decision.