CRL.R.P No.2905 of 2005

1 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 2905 OF 2005** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2005 IN CRA NO.598 OF 2004 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2004 IN CC NO.36 OF 2004 OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF MARADU CASES, KOZHIKODE** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:** - **1 C.PREMAN, S/O NANU, CHOYICHANTAKATH HOUSE, MARAD BEACH, NADUVATTOM AMSOM, DESOM.** - **2 K.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KELAPPANTAKATH HOUSE, MARAD, BEYPORE.** - **3 C.UNNI S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHOYICHANTAKATH HOUSE, MARAD, BEYPORE.** - **4 K.SATHEESAN, S/O.GOPALAN KOTHANTAKATH HOUSE, MARAD, BEYPORE AMSOM.** - **5 K.SURESAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KOTHANTAKATH HOUSE, NEAR FISHERIES SCHOOL, MARAD, BEYPORE.** - **6 NANU, S/O.VASU KANNANTAPURAKKAL HOUSE, MARAD, BEYPORE AMSOM.** Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 2 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 - **7 K.PRAJEESH, S/O.VIJAYAN, MUNDATHARA HOUSE, MARAD.** - **8 THOPPAYIL SURESH, S/O.NANU, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, KASABA AMSOM, KALATHUMKUNNU.** - **9 SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.RAJAN, PINNANATH HOUSE, THAMBI ROAD, GOTHEESWARAM.** **BY ADVS. C.G.PREETHA ARUN KRISHNA DHAN K.B.SAJEESH ARJUN SREEDHAR(K/393/2008) T.K.SANDEEP(K/1076/2003) ALEX ABRAHAM(K/000508/2017) SWETHA R.(K/002236/2022) HARIKRISHNAN P.B.(K/002531/2022)** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 ## K.BABU, J. -------------------------------------- ## Criminal.R.P No.2905 of 2005 --------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2024 ## O R D E R The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment convicting the revision petitioners under Sections 143 and 153-A read with Section 149 of IPC in C.C No.36/2004, passed by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode and confirmed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. 2. The Revision Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 15. The charge against the revision petitioners is that at or about 10.30 a.m., on 05.01.2002, in front of the mosque at Marad Beach in violation of the prohibitory orders issued by the District Collector, Kozhikode under Section 144 Cr.P.C, the revision petitioners and eight others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the object of promoting enmity or disharmony between the Hindus and Muslims of the area based on religion and committed rioting and uttered words intended to achieve the said object. The Trial Court convicted the revision petitioners and **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 4 sentenced them to undergo various terms of imprisonment. The revision petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court filing Crl.A No.598/2004. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Police officials alone supported the prosecution case and therefore the Trial Court and the Sessions Court committed an irregularity in convicting the accused without the testimony of any independent witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that the exact words allegedly chanted by the revision petitioners were not brought on evidence and therefore, the prosecution failed to bring out the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 153-A IPC. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution placed credible materials to establish the offences alleged. 6. Communal riots erupted at Marad Beach on 03.01.2002 and **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 5 04.01.2002. Several persons belonging to Hindu and Muslilm communities sustained grievous injuries. Some of them succumbed to the injuries. 7. The revision petitioners came in a group and assembled in front of the mosque at the beach. They allegedly uttered words intending to promote enmity and disharmony among the members of two communities on the basis of religion. The Inspector of Police (PW1), Nallalam was on duty at the place of occurrence. The Police arrested the revision petitioners and the other accused. They were removed to Beypore Police Station and registered a crime, which formed the basis of this prosecution. PW1 registered Ext.P1(a) FIR and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Exhibit P2 is the arrest memo prepared by PW1. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and after obtaining Ext.P9 sanction from the competent authority in the Government submitted the final report. 8. PWs 1 and 2 gave evidence in tune with the prosecution case. They specifically stated the exact words spoken by the revision petitioners. PW3 supported the prosecution version stating that the revision petitioners raised anti-Muslim slogans. An **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 6 independent witness, examined as PW6, did not support the prosecution. PWs 7 to 14 gave evidence regarding the dispute over an unauthorised shed and other related incidents leading to the communal riots. 9. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that only official witnesses supported the prosecution case deserves no merits, as the official witnesses who were present in the scene of occurrence gave credible evidence in support of the prosecution case. PWs 1 and 2 specifically mentioned the words chanted by the revision petitioners and others. The Police officials who were deputed there on law and order duty were natural witnesses. The fact that they were official witnesses is not a ground to discard their evidence unless the credibility of which is affected otherwise. 10. The Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court concurrently recorded the finding that the prosecution established the offences alleged. The views taken by the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court are reasonable. The revision petitioners failed to point out any patent illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court and 7 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 the Sessions Court. 11. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable, or there is nonconsideration 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 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 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 8 Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 9 SCC 631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)] }. 12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction entered by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court requires no interference. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for reducing the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners. The Trial Court sentenced the revision petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 143 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence under Section 153-A IPC. The Sessions Court confirmed the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 14. The incident occurred in 2002. Twenty two years have now elapsed. It is submitted from the bar that the communal disharmony prevailed in the locality lasted only for a short period. The people of the locality who formed Hindus and Muslims are now living in harmony and peace. The enmity which persisted for a 9 **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** 2024:KER:59861 Crl.R.P No.2905 of 2005 short period faded away. 15. Having considered the entire circumstances, the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners stands modified as follows: 16. The revision petitioners shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each under Sections 143 and 153-A read with Section 149 IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed as above. Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE KAS