AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, we do not find any reason whatsoever to
consider interference in the concurrent findings whereby the petitioners have been convicted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 307,
452 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned senior counsel Mr. R. Basant has attempted his best to persuade us to consider that the questions, as to whether the petitioners were at
all the members of unlawful assembly and vicarious liability could be fasten on them, have not been adverted to with reference to the relevant facts
and the surrounding factors, as available on record. However, in our view, all the relevant and material aspects have been examined in necessary
details by three Courts in this matter.
The High Court, even while dealing with the revision petitions after two concurrent findings, again adverted to the evidence on record and also took
note of all the surrounding factors; and precisely dealt with the questions related with formation of an unlawful assembly with common objects of the
persons composing it being referable to Section 141 IPC, particularly in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment. The concurrent findings on
liability of the petitioners with reference to Section 149 IPC remain unquestionable.
Looking to the nature of accusations and gruesome injuries suffered by the injured P.W.1 coupled with the evidence led by the prosecution, we feel
that the Trial Court (the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara) had been rather considerate in awarding the sentence of imprisonment of
six years for the offence under Section 307 IPC. After confirmation of the judgment of the Trial Court by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge
Thiruvananthapuram in the appeal, the High Court dealt with the matter in its revisional jurisdiction and while setting aside the conviction of the
petitioners for offence under Section 436 IPC, proceeded to reduce the sentence under Section 307 IPC to the imprisonment of three years,
particularly with reference to the fact that the occurrence took place as back as on 21.03.1990 and the accused had been defending the matter for
about 30 years. Though we are not fully convinced with such reduction of sentence in the facts and circumstances of the present case but, with the
State being not in appeal, we are leaving the matter at that only.
No case for interference at the instance of the petitioners is made out.
These petitions stand dismissed.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.