GOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.305 of 1982 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. He was found guilty for the offences under Secs.353 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offence. Against the said conviction and sentence, an appeal had been preferred in C.A.No.981 of 1984 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. THE learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction under Sec.353, I.P.C., and modifying the sentence into one of fine of Rs.600 in fact set aside the conviction and sentence under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the evidence available on record, if scanned properly will point out that the offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., can by no stretch of imagination be made out and consequently, the convictions and sentence under that section have to be set aside. LEARNED counsel, in support of his argument would take me through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and also paragraph 7of the judgment of the appellate Court. The learned Sessions Judge, had in fact adverted to in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the evidence available on record as regards the wielding of the knife by the accused and issuing threat to the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 is rather contradictory, making the Court not to rely on their evidence as beyond reproach and suspicion and consequently, he gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him of the charge under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. LEARNED counsel, seizing the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. would contend that the criminal force or assault that is necessary for making out an offence under Sec.353, I.P.C., will not be there in such an eventuality.