BABU AVARACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam, as per judgment dtd. 2/6/2015 in C.C. No.961/2005, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Ernakulam, by judgment dtd. 1/1/2016 in criminal appeal No.272/2015. The revision petitioner is the first accused in the said case and the remaining accused were acquitted by the trial court.

(2.) The prosecution case can be epitomized as follows; The accused, three in number, were employees in a private bus bearing registration No.KL-7-AU-9176. While so, on 1/8/2015, at 6.00 p.m., the first accused drove the bus through Sahodharan Ayyappan Road at overspeed, which was questioned by CW1 (PW1), a Police Constable attached to Ambalamedu Police Station. Infuriated by the same, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, showered abuses against PW1 and the first accused, stabbed PW1 on the neck with a screwdriver and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. The second and third accused also assaulted PW1 by fisting and beating him repeatedly. According to the prosecution, at the relevant time, PW1 was in the discharge of his official duties, and the accused acted with an intention to deter him from discharging the said duty. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 294(b) and 332 r/w 34 of the IPC.

(3.) In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and the documents produced from the side of the prosecution were marked Exts.P1 to P8. A contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witness brought out during cross-examination was marked as Ext. D1. The alleged weapon of offence was exhibited, identified and marked as MO1. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against them in evidence. Thereafter, the accused were called upon to enter upon their defence and adduce evidence, if any, in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was adduced on the side of the defence.