This criminal revision petition challenges a conviction for disorderly conduct under the Kerala Police Act. The High Court held that official witness evidence was sufficient for conviction and the sentence was not excessive, dismissing the appeal.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed; the conviction and sentence of the High Court below are upheld.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 108 of 2002 ( )
CRA.NO.205/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY STC.NO.24/1996 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
T.KARUNAKARAN, S/O. KUNHAMBU, AGED 48 YEARS, KALLIASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Rev. Petition No.108 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in STC No.24/1996 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kannur. He was prosecuted for an offence under Section 51 (a) of the Kerala Police Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 15.01.1996 at 8 p.m., the petitioner was found drunk at Mangad Bazar behaving in a disorderly manner causing nuisance to the general public. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Ext.P1 medical certificate. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Magistrate convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for four days. The petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.205/1997 before the Sessions Judge, Thalassery, who confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the
Crl. Rev. Petition No.108 of 2002
-2-
appeal. The petitioner is challenging the judgments of the courts below.
Crl. Rev. Petition No.108 of 2002
-3-
15.1.1996 at Mangad Bazar at 8. p.m, he apprehended the accused indulged in altercation with PW2 after consuming alcohol. These evidences are more than sufficient to find the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged against him, is the contention raised.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no law to the effect that there cannot be any successful conviction on the basis of the depositions of the official witnesses alone. Here, PW3 is the Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, who apprehended the petitioner, gave evidence to the effect that he apprehended the petitioner indulging in an altercation with PW2, after consuming alcohol causing nuisance to the public. The petitioner was produced before the Doctor, PW1, immediately, who examined him and gave Ext.P1 certificate that he was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time. I am satisfied that the said evidence is more than sufficient to find the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged against him. The
Crl. Rev. Petition No.108 of 2002
-4-
sentence imposed on the petitioner is also cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Crl. R.P. and accordingly the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy//
P.A. TO JUDGE
shg/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a conviction is sustainable based solely on the evidence of official witnesses in the absence of hostile independent witnesses.
Whether the sentence of fifteen days' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100 is excessive.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T. KARUNAKARAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
