KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was concurrently convicted and sentenced for the offence under S.452, 353, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 23/12/2002 PW 1 the Agricultural Officer was at her office. On that day several students had come to the office to get their certificates attested. It was not completed by 1.15 p.m. PW 1 stopped attesting the certificates and disclosed her intention to return after taking meals. Some of the students, whose certificates are yet to be attested, wanted their certificates to be attested before PW 1 left the office for meals. One of the students brought the petitioner an autorickshaw driver to the office. He directed PW 1 to attest the certificate of a particular student before PW 1 leaves the office. When PW 1 disclosed that everything will be done after lunch, petitioner scolded her using abusive language. Hearing it shop owners came there and took petitioner outside. It is alleged that petitioner thereby committed the offence under S.452, 353 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. PW 1 lodged the complaint on the next day. Ext. P1 First Information Statement was prepared. Based on Ext. P1 a Crime was registered and after investigation charge was laid which was taken cognizance by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Koyilandy. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and marked Exts. P1 and P2. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offences under S.452 and 353 of Indian Penal Code but acquitted of the offence under S.294(b) of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under S.452 of IPC and simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) for the offence under S.353 of IPC. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl. Appeal No. 33/2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

(3.) The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge misappreciated the evidence and appreciation of evidence was perverse. It was argued that there is material contradictions in the evidence of PW 1 on the one hand that of PW 2 on the other hand and based on that evidence petitioner was convicted. It was also argued that eventhough prosecution case is that there were several students at the time of the incident, none of them were examined. It was then argued that Investigating Officer was not examined and therefore petitioner could not be proved the contradictions and in such circumstance, Courts below were not justified in convicting the petitioner. It was argued that even if the case is accepted, an offence under S.452 of IPC is not attracted as to constitute an offence under S.452 IPC, there should be a house trespass as provided under S.442 of IPC and the incident took place inside an office room where public have right of entry and therefore there is no trespass and there is no evidence that PW 1 was wrongly restrained by the petitioner and in such circumstance conviction for the offence under S.452 of Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. Learned counsel argued that on the evidence on record conviction for the offence under S.353 of Indian Penal Code also is not sustainable and in any case sentence awarded is excessive.