Revision against concurrent conviction under Sections 452 and 506(i) IPC for trespass with a chopper, abuse and intimidation. The court found PW1's evidence discrepant and uncorroborated, gave the petitioner the benefit of doubt, and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Conviction and consequential sentence set aside; petitioner given benefit of doubt.
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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 459 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2016 IN CRA NO.370 OF
2014 OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07.11.2014 IN CC NO.106 OF 2008 OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
1 LAL (DIED) AGED 55 YEARS AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, BAISHY NIVAS,ALTHARAMOODU, PULLAYIL, KODUVAZHANNOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 LEENA D S*
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O LATE LAL, LAVANYA, PULLAYIL P.O, KILIMANOOR,TRIVANDRUM -695601.
3 NEELULAL*
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O LATE LAL, LAVANYA, PULLAYIL P.O, KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM- 695601.
4 VYSAL L AGED 24 YEARS, S/O LATE LAL, LAVANYA, PULLAYIL P.O, KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM -695601.*
5 VYDEHI*
AGED 76 YEARS, W/O BHASKARAN , BAISHY NIVAS, PULLAYIL P.O, KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM -695601.
*ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPLICANTS NO.2 TO 5 VIDE ORDER DATED 27/3/2024 IN CRL M A 2/2024 IN CRL R P 459/2017.
BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN
2
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM – 682031.
BY SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 03.07.2024, THE COURT ON 17.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------------Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of July, 2024
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.106 of 2008 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First ClassII, Attingal. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him. The appeal filed was dismissed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).
4
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
demanded a loan of Rs.10,000/-, but PW1 did not oblige. Hence the petitioner abused her over phone. Her husband informed the father of the petitioner regarding the same. Due to that enmity, at about 6.30 p.m. on 01.06.2007, he reached the house of PW1 possessed with a chopper, abused her and threatened to kill her. He caught hold of her hand and thereby outraged her modesty.
5
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
house. PW2 deposed that on hearing sounds from the house of PW1, she reached there. At the front room of that house, she saw the revision petitioner possessed with a chopper. She did not see the revision petitioner committing the offending acts. What PW1 deposed is that coming to her house possessed with a chopper, the revision petitioner abused and threatened her. He caught hold of her hand and threatened. She left the house only when PW2 reached there.
6
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
the revision petitioner was there and soon he left. Of course, her evidence may help to corroborate the version of PW1 that the revision petitioner reached the house as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence concerning intimidation, abusing and the assault is, however, that of PW1 alone. The trial court as well as the appellate court took the view that the version of PW1 with regard to the abuse and catching hold of her hand by the revision petitioner could not be believed. The part of her oral testimony that the revision petitioner was in possession of a chopper and he threatened her was believed. It is not prohibited in law in believing a part of the evidence of a witness while disbelieving the other part. But when the conviction has to be based on the sole testimony of such a witness, a strict scrutiny of the evidence is required.
7
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
That being the nature of the evidence tendered by PW1 and the evidence of PW2 is not of avail to corroborate PW1’s evidence, I am of the view that the revision petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In that view of the matter, the conviction concurrently rendered by the courts below cannot be sustained. Hence, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the revision petitioner and consequential
sentence are set aside.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
8
Crl.Revision Petition No.459 of 2017
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 459/2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH BY KADINAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 11.12.2023 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL HEIR SHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THASILDHAR CHIRAYINKIYIL TALUK DATED 19.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sole testimony of PW1, partly disbelieved and uncorroborated by PW2, could sustain conviction for house trespass and criminal intimidation.
Whether the delay in lodging the complaint undermined the prosecution case.
6 provisions across 2 enactments
LAL (died) / legal heirs including LEENA D S, NEELULAL, VYSAL L, VYDEHI
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
