POKKER Vs. P.K. ABDURAHIMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is preferred by the de facto complainant against the judgments in Crl. Appeal No. 670 of 2004, 741 of 2004 and 749 of 2004 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The accused were charge -sheeted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli under Ss. 143, 147, 447, 427 r/w 149 IPC. The charge against the accused is that on 06/02/1996, after 12 O'clock in the night, the accused, along with 75 unidentified persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the property owned by the brother of the revision petitioner, committed rioting and demolished the compound wall and thereby sustained a loss of Rs. 50,000/ -. In this incident, Payyoli Police registered a case and after completing investigation, SHO, Payyoli laid a final report before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyoli. A2 is absconding, therefore his case was split up and refiled. During trial, prosecution examined P.W. 1 to PW 6 and marked Exts. P1 to P12 as documentary evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced A1, A3 to A7 to simple imprisonment for two months each under Sec. 143 r/w Sec. 149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for eight months and fine of Rs. 1000/ - each, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months each under Sec. 147 r/w Sec. 149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/ - each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for four months under Sec. 427 r/w Sec. 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month each under Sec. 447 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. If the fine amount is realised, it was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - to PW 1 by way of compensation under Sec. 357(1) Cr.P.C.. Against that accused preferred Crl. Appeal Nos. 670/2004, 741/2004 and 749/2004 and the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode modified the sentence of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by that, the de facto complainant preferred this revision.

(2.) The main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the Appellate Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment to simple imprisonment till rising of Court, which is illegal, hence the sentence has to be enhanced. The brother of the revision petitioner sustained heavy loss in the above incident and he is entitled to get reasonable amount of compensation, which was not considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. He also contended that Sec. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. empowers the de facto complainant to file a revision petition to rectify that illegality.

(3.) In reply to the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 contended that the Appellate Court already modified the sentence and rightly decided the case, hence a revision by third party to enhance the sentence is not maintainable.