Dismissed

P.Suresh v. the Si of Police, Rajapuram Police Stati

Kerala HC9 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/249/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused challenged conviction under Sections 341 and 324 IPC of the Sessions and Magistrate courts on grounds of perverse appreciation of evidence and lack of independent witnesses. The High Court found the testimonies of the injured and eyewitness reliable and affirmed the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Crl. Revision Petition No. 249 of 2004 is dismissed. The judgments of the lower courts are affirmed.

P.Suresh Vs the Si of Police, Rajapuram Police Stati — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/17TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 249 of 2004 (A)

¶6

CRA.125/2001 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.837/1997 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. P.SURESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.PARADESHI, PALAPUZHA, KODOM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. P. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PARADESHI, PALAPUZHA, KODOM VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.M.SANTHOSHKUMAR.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2004

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The accused in C.C. No.837/1997 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg, are the petitioners herein. They were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners were convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 14 days each for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 of the IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, with a default sentence of 14 days' simple imprisonment. The sentences were to run concurrently. The Sessions Court, Kasaragod, confirmed the conviction and sentence, in Crl. Appeal No.125/2001, filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging the judgments of the courts below.

¶23

The prosecution case was as follows: On account of previous enmity, the accused shared a common intention

¶24

Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2004

¶25

-2-

¶26

to cause injuries to PW1 and restrained his movement when he was proceeding through the gravel road situated on the north to the house of the accused at Palappuzha on 8.6.1997 at 8. 30 p.m. and in the course of the same, the 1^st accused beat him with a wooden stick and voluntarily caused injuries to the person of PW1. Both the accused helped each other for the commission of the offence and hence they were liable for punishment for the offence under Sections 341 & 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution sought to prove the prosecution case by examining PWs 1 to 7, marking Exts.P1 to P4 and producing MOs 1 & 2, which were the wooden sticks used for beating PW1 and the lighted torch made up of coconut leaves used by PW1.

¶27

The contention of the petitioners in the Crl. Revision Petition is that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is perverse. According to them, the prosecution has sought to prove the prosecution case only through the interested testimonies of PWs 2 & 3, who are

¶28

Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2004

¶29

-3-

¶30

the father and brother of PW1, whose testimonies could not have been relied upon. The case put forward by PWs 1 & 3 could not be believed, since the incident occurred during night and therefore, there was no possibility of the witnesses identifying the perpetrators of the alleged crimes. According to them, there is serious discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the witnesses also. No independent witnesses have been examined, without whose corroboration of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3, no conviction could have been validly entered by the courts below, is their contention. They would also contend that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.

¶31

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that witnesses PWs 1 & 3 gave convincing evidence regarding the incident. Both of them had identified the accused in the light of the lighted torches, which was carried by PW1 as well as PW3. The facts that PW1 was the injured and PW2 was the brother do not in anyway reduce the evidentiary

¶33

Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2004

¶34

-4-

¶35

value of their testimonies, insofar as the evidence of the injured, if cogent and convincing is good evidence and PW3 was accompanying PW1 at the time of incident. He would point out that the medical evidence actually corroborated by the evidence of PWs 1 & 3.

¶36

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶37

I have gone through the records of the case. I could not find any infirmity whatsoever in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below. PWs 1 & 3 gave categoric evidence to the effect that the accused attacked PW1 with a wooden stick during night. PWs 1 & 3 were carrying lighted torches made up of coconut leaves with them. They identified the accused in the light of the torches. I do not find anything wrong in the lower courts accepting their evidence insofar as no material discrepancies could be brought out in cross-examination of the witnesses. I do not also find any discrepancies in the medical evidence with the evidence of PWs 1 & 3. In the above circumstances, I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by

¶38

Crl. Rev. Petition No.249 of 2004

¶39

-5-

¶40

the courts below. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. Accordingly, the Crl. R.P. is dismissed.

Sd/-

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. TO JUDGE

shg/

P.Suresh v. the Si of Police, Rajapuram Police Stati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Suresh v. the Si of Police, Rajapuram Police Stati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Pushparajan Vs State of Kerala

M.S.Muthukumara Swamy Vs the State of Kerala

A.Mahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs the State of Kerala

K.M. Abdu Rahiman Vs C.K. Aboobacker