CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in CC No.12/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Palakkad. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Ss. 451 and 323 IPC. The punishment awarded under Sec. 451 IPC was Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2000.00, and that under Sec. 323 IPC was Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. A default clause of Simple Imprisonment for one month was also provided for non-payment of fine. Though the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the learned Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the above Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 31/10/2013. It is aggrieved by the above dismissal of Crl.Appeal No.715/2010 by the learned Sessions Court, Palakkad, that the present revision is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

(3.) The prosecution case is that on 7/12/2007 at about 5 am, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attempted to outrage her modesty, and also slapped on her face, causing injuries. Though the Final Report was filed in respect of the offences under Ss. 451, 323 and 354 IPC, the Trial Court found that the offence under Sec. 354 IPC is not attracted. It is seen from the records that the Trial Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 in arriving at the finding that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offences under Ss. 451 and 323 IPC. The Appellate Court has also reappraised the evidence on record and concluded that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. On going through the records of the case as well as the impugned judgment, I am of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in the above regard. In the absence of grave illegality or perverse appreciation of evidence, it is not possible for the revisional court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below.