Anand Kumar and Rajasekharan So.Kunhikrishnan v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2754 OF 2009 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2009 IN CRA NO.8 OF 2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2006 IN CC NO.324 OF 2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, MANANTHAVADY REVISION PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` 1ANAND KUMAR 'ANUGRAHAM', CHAEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. 2RAJASEKHARAN SO.KUNHIKRISHNAN 'CHAITHANYA', KANIYARAM,, MANANTHAVADY. BY ADVS. SRI.M.ASOKAN SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SI OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY,, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI G SUDHEER ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 ..2.. ## **K.BABU, J** **------------------------------------------------Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of July, 2024** ## **ORDER** The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 25.04.2009 in Crl.Appeal No.8 of 2007 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kalpetta arising out of the judgment dated 19.12.2006 in C.C.No.324 of 2004. 2. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2. They have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 353, 506(1) r/w Section 34 of IPC. - The prosecution case: 3. On 07.08.2004 around 8.15 AM, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the office of PW1 at Government Vocational Higher Secondary School at Mananthavady and used criminal force against PW1 to deter him from discharging his Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** official duty and caused mischief. The accused also threatened PW1 with injury to his person and reputation. 4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and proved Exts.P1 to P11 and MOs 1 and 2. On the side of the defence, DW1 gave evidence and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked . 5. The incident occurred in the course of a Department Test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission at Mananthavady. One Anupama Raj was a candidate in that test. The Principal of the institution (PW1) found her copying during the test. She was sent out of the examination hall after recovering the answer paper etc. Her husband and father approached the Principal and demanded the papers recovered from her. The Principal refused to comply with their demand. They used criminal force against him and obstructed his official duties and caused damages. 6. The Principal of the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School gave evidence as PW1. He Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** gave evidence that he was the Chief Superintendent of the Department Test conducted by the PSC on 07.08.2004. He got information that Smt. Anupama Raj was copying during the examination using some papers. He received the information from PW4, a teacher of the school. PW1 went to the examination hall and found Smt. Anupama Raj possessing some unathorised papers. PW1 had recovered those papers and asked her to sign on them. Thereafter, she walked out of the examination hall. PW1 had also seized her hall ticket and answer sheets. He came to his office. After 10minutes, Smt. Anupama Raj reached his office and asked him to return the papers recovered from her. She also insisted him not to report the matter to the higher authorities. At 08.20 pm, the father of Smt. Anupama Raj and her husband (Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) came there. Accused No.2 slapped on his face and left shoulder. Accused No.1 pulled him by catching on his shirt. They had torn out a Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** question paper packet and additional sheets of papers kept on the office table. 7. The oral evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3 to 5. Exts.P1 to P10 lent further support to the prosecution case. 8. The trial Court meticulously analysed the evidence and recorded the finding that the prosecution established the offences under Sections 448, 353 and 506(1) r/w Section 34 of IPC against the revision petitioner. 9. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction rendered by the trial Court but modified the sentence imposed. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the oral evidence of PWs 3 and 4 is not credible. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that the enmity resulted from the family dispute between PW1 and the family of Smt. Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Anupama Raj resulted in the registration of the false case against her. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor countered and submitted that the oral evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5 consistently supports the prosecution case and Exts. P1 to P5 strengthen the foundation of the prosecution case. 12. I have carefully gone through the materials made available. There is nothing to show that the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court palpably misread the evidence rendered by the witnesses. There is nothing to show that there is non-consideration of any relevant materials by the courts below. 13. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable, or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide: _**Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke**_ [(2015) 3 SCC 123], _**Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr**_ [(2001) 9 SCC 631)] and _**Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation**_ [(2018) 16 SCC 299)]} Crl.Revision Petition No.2754 of 2009 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** I am of the view that the impugned judgments are not affected by any patent error of jurisdiction. All the challenges in this Revision Petition fail. This Court fails to find that the impugned judgments are unsustainable in law, grossly erroneous or unreasonable. The Crl. Revision Petition stands dismissed. **Sd/K.BABU JUDGE** kkj