High Court of Kerala affirmed conviction under IPC 341/326/34. It held circumstantial evidence proved petitioner shared common intention with co-accused to cause grievous hurt and upheld the sentence.
Revision petition failed; conviction and sentence were upheld; petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1996 of 2009()
-----------------------------CRA.569/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTFAST TRACK NO.II, (ADHOC), THRISSUR SC.626/2005 of II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED
SIJU, AGED 33, S/O.KALLIKADAN JOSE, MADAMATHOPPU DESOM, KANIMANGALAM DESOM, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1996 of 2009 -------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009.
ORDER
This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.II(Adhoc), Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.569 of 2007 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short, “the Code”). Petitioner along with accused No.2 faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 341, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Code on the charge that on 13.3.2005 at about 2.30 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention petitioner wrongfully restrained PW1 while accused No.2 assaulted him with a chopper in an attempt to cause his death resulting hurt/grievous hurt to him. Learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge before whom case was tried found petitioner and accused No.2 guilty under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Code. Petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various periods. Appellate court did not interfere with the conviction or sentence. Learned counsel contended that involvement of petitioner in the case on hand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and at any rate, it is not shown that petitioner shared common intention with accused No.2 in causing grievous hurt to PW1.
Crl.R.P.No.1996/2009
2
PW2, medical officer who examined him and Ext.P2, the wound certificate. It is seen that PW1 suffered several fractures. PW2 opined that MO1, chopper can cause the injuries.
3
Crl.R.P.No.1996/2009
occurrence. According to the prosecution PW9, Sub Inspector arrested petitioner and accused No.2 and on the information given by accused No.2 seized MO1 as per Ext.P5, mahazar.
Crl.R.P.No.1996/2009
4
wriggle out from the hands of petitioner. It is true that PW1 did not say so in so many words in his evidence. But it is clear from the evidence of PW1 that even after the first assault petitioner had not released PW1 from wrongful restraint. PW1 escaped from the restraint, ran away and he was again assaulted by accused No.2. That, even after the first assault by accused No.2 (which PW1 evaded) petitioner had not released PW1 is an indication that he shared common intention with accused No.2 to cause grievous hurt. Immediately before the incident and even thereafter petitioner was found moving with accused No.2. Going by the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and 5 even after the incident in which accused No.2 inflicted grievous hurt to PW1 with MO1, petitioner was seen going along with accused No.2 to the house of the latter. There is no case or evidence that MO1, chopper was left at the scene of occurrence by accused No.2. On the other hand going by the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P5 that chopper was later recovered on the information given by accused No.2. In other words while going away from the scene of occurrence after the incident accused No.2 was carrying the chopper with which he assaulted PW1. Then also petitioner was seen going along with accused No.2 to the house of the latter. These circumstances are sufficient to indicate that petitioner shared common intention with accused No.2 in causing grievous hurt
Crl.R.P.No.1996/2009
5
to PW1. Therefore I do not find reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below that apart from wrongfully restraining PW1 petitioner shared common intention with accused No.2 in the matter of causing grievous hurt as well. Hence, conviction of petitioner did not require interference.
Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner shared common intention with the co-accused to cause grievous hurt to the victim.
Whether the Courts below could conclude that the petitioner restrained the victim while the co-accused assaulted him.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Siju
State of Kerala
Thomas P. Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
