GOVINDAN SASI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has arisen challenging the confirmed conviction and sentence delivered by the VIth Addl. Spl. Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. A. No. 301 of 1991. The revision petitioner was charge sheeted under S.427 and 304A IPC and S.3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nemom. The Ist Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, who conducted the trial, found the revision petitioner guilty under S.304A and 427 IPC and thereby sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each section and the sentences were to run concurrently. The above conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in the above said Crl. Appeal, Crl. A. No. 301 of 1991.

(2.) With regard to the conviction and sentence of the lower appellate court, the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would be that even a shallow consideration of the oral testimony projected by the witnesses would satisfy this court that S.304A and 427 IPC are not attracted. When that be so, the conviction rendered by the court below has to be necessarily set aside by this court. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would advance an argument on the ground that the revision petitioner was charge sheeted under S.3 of the Act also. But, however, as there was no reliable evidence with reference to the punishment under S.3 of the Act, the revision petitioner was found guilty only under S.304A and 427 IPC and the conclusion of the court below in finding the accused guilty under the above two sections of the IPC is proper and they need no interference by this court, in this revision.

(3.) No doubt, it is well settled proposition of law that when concurrent findings have been rendered by the courts below, normally, this court need not interfere into those findings under S.482 CrPC. However, when there is a glaring infirmity and flaw in the discussion of evidence even with reference to the facts and on that basis when a wrong conclusion has been recorded by the courts below this court can rightly invoke its power under S.482 CrPC. In that view of the proposition of law, I will look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether they have brought home guilt against the revision petitioner under S.304A and 427 IPC.