SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C 584/1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. He faced prosecution in the trial court under Sections 332, 224, 294(b), 506 (II) and 341 I.P.C , on the allegation that when the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Adimaly proceeded to arrest him in execution of a warrant of arrest issued from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly in C.C.354/1994, he assaulted the Assistant Sub Inspector, intimidated him, and also escaped from the custody of the Assistant Sub Inspector. The Assistant Sub Inspector submitted a report before the Sub Inspector and on this complaint, a crime was registered. After investigation, the Police submitted final report in court.

(2.) The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and proved Exts. P1 to P6 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C . He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Sections 332 , 224 and 506 (II) I.P.C. He was not found guilty under Sections 294 (b) and 341 I.P.C . On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years, and to pay fine of 1000/- under Section 332 I.P.C, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 500/- under Section 224 I.P.C, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 500/- under Section 506 (II) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 23.7.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thodupuzha with Crl.A 233/2004. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge for NDPS Cases), Thodupuzha found the accused not guilty under Section 506 (II) I.P.C, but the conviction under Sections 332 and 224 I.P.C was confirmed. The sentence under those Sections was also confirmed in appeal. Now the accused is before this court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.