KESAVAN SREEDHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal appeal has been preferred by accused 1 to 9 in Sessions Case No.64 of 1958 of the Sessions Court of Trivandrum. Accused 1 to 9 were convicted under S.341, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks. Accused 1 to 6 were convicted under S.323 also and they were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for the said offence and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks.

(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated: Accused 2, 4 and 7 were former employees of K.M.K.S. Motor Service belonging to Pw. 12. Pw.10 is the younger brother of Pw. 12 and he is a partner of Kamala Corporation having its office at Trivandrum. Pw. 10 had sent a lorry KLT 1308 to the workshop of Pw. 12 at Attingal for replacing the engine with a diesel engine. The work was duly completed and Pw. 10 sent Pws. 1, 2 and 4 to take the lorry back to Trivandrum. At that time there was a strike in the workshop of Pw. 12. Pw. 1 took delivery of the lorry at about 11 30 A.M. on 12-9-1957 and along with Pws. 2 and 4 he took the lorry to Trivandrum. By about 1. P. M the lorry had reached a place near Pankappara bridge about 2 1/2 miles east of the police station at Kazhakkootam. At that stage accused 1 to 8 who were following the lorry in a taxi-car driven by the 9th accused overtook the lorry and stopped the car in such a manner that the lorry could not proceed further. Accused 1 to 8 then got out of the car and they forced Pws. 1, 2 and 4 to get down from the lorry. The first accused then beat Pw. 1 on his cheek and the second accused fisted him on his chest and other parts of the body. The third accused beat and kicked Pw. 4 on his nose, and the fourth accused kicked his on his navel. The fifth accused kicked Pw. 3 and the sixth accused beat him on his cheek. Accused 7 and 8 threatened Pws. 1, 2 and 4 with drawn knives. Then they forced Pws. 1, 2 and 4 to get into the lorry which was taken back to Attingal and stopped in front of the office of the Communist party there. Pws. 1, 2 and 4 were forcibly taken inside the office room which was then locked. They were released only the next day at 10 A. M. There were two tins in the lorry containing eight gallons of petrol sent from K.M.K.S. office to be delivered to Pw. 12 at Trivandrum. The accused removed these also from the lorry. The lorry was taken back to the K.M.K. S. workshop at Attingal by the accused after Pws. 1, 2 and 4 were placed inside the room. After their release at 10 A. M. on 13-9-1957 they proceeded to Trivandrum and informed Pw. 10 as to what had transpired. As directed by Pw. 10, Pw. 1 went to the police station at Kazhakkoottam and gave the first information statement (Ex. P-l). The Police also prepared a mahazar (Ex. P2) regarding the bodily condition of Pw. 1. Pw. 13, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case. Ex. P6 is the first information report regarding the occurrence. Pw. 1 was then sent to Andoorkonam hospital. The next day at about 10 A. M. Pw. 13 prepared a scene mahazar (Ex. P3). On his requisition the Attingal Police took the lorry into custody. The car in which accused 1 to 9 followed the lorry was also seized. The office of the Communist party as well as the house of the first accused were searched for recovering the petrol but the same was not found. After investigation was completed the accused were duly charged before the City Second Class Magistrate, Trivandrum who committed the accused to stand their trial before the court of sessions Charges were framed by the learned Sessions Judge against all the accused for offences under S.143, 149, 341, 395, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code The accused pleaded not guilty, but the learned Judge found that the accused obstructed the lorry near Pangappara bridge and restrained Pws 1, 2 and 4 from proceeding to Trivandrum, that accused 1 and 2 assaulted Pw. 1, that accused 3 and 4 assaulted Pw. 4, and that accused 5 and 6 assaulted Pw. 2. It was also found that Pws. 1, 2 and 4 were wrongly restrained and detained by the accused. They were all accordingly convicted under S.341 and accused 1 to 6 under S.323 also. Pw. 10 has preferred a criminal revision petition against the judgment of the court below contending that the accused should have been convicted on the other charges as well and that proper sentence should have been awarded.

(3.) The fact that the lorry had been sent by Pw. 10 to the workshop of Pw. 12 at Attingal for replacing the engine was not disputed. This is proved by the testimony of Pws. 1, 2, 4, and 10. It is also proved that Pw. 10 had sent a driver (Pw. 1) and two other employees (Pws. 2 and 4) to bring the lorry back from Attingal, that they left the workshop, with the lorry, at about 11-30 A.M. and that they were taking the lorry to Trivandrum. It is also in evidence that there was a strike in the workshop of Pw. 12 at that time.