Kerala High Court

Ashokan vs State Of Kerala on 6 November, 2024

Crl.R.P.495/2017


                                 1

                                                 2024:KER:82587

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
   WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/15TH KARTHIKA, 1946


                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 495 OF 2017

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2016 IN CRA NO.211/2012

OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-III, THALASSERY ARISING OUT

OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2012 IN CC NO.308/2007 OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,KUTHUPARAMBA

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

      1       ASHOKAN
              AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN,
              AGRICULTURE, P.O.
              CHERUVANCHERRY,
              KANNUR(DIST)

      2       SUDHEER
              AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ACHUTHAN,
              BUSINESS, P.O.
              CHERUVANCHERRY,
              KANNUR(DIST)

      3       SAJEEVAN
              S/O. NANU, AGED 38 YEARS,
              BUSINESS,
              P.O. CHERUVANCHERRY,
              KANNUR(DIST)

      4       APPUKUTTAN
              AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. KUNHANBU,
              AGRICULTURE,
              P.O. CHERUVANCHERRY,
              KANNUR(DIST)
 Crl.R.P.495/2017


                                 2

                                                2024:KER:82587

      5       SASIDHARAN
              AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN,
              AGRICULTURE,
              P.O. CHERUVANCHERRY,
              KANNUR(DIST)


              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.SAJU
              SRI.R.PRATHEESH ARANMULA
              SRI.M.K.RANJIT
              SRI.R.SUDHEER



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

              STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKULAM.

               BY SMT. MAYA M.N, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

          THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.495/2017


                                       3

                                                         2024:KER:82587

                                  ORDER

Dated this the 6th day of November, 2024

This revision petition is filed by the appellants 1 to 5 in Crl.A.

No.211 of 2012 on the file of the III rd Additional Court of Sessions,

Thalassery against the judgment dated 31.12.2016 confirming the

judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Koothuparamba in CC No.308 of 2007 finding them guilty of the

offences under Section 143 and 147 IPC and under Section 2 of the

Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1961.

2. The prosecution case is that under the auspices of Krishi

Bhavan, Pattyam, a public meeting was held at UP School

Cheruvancheri on 16.5.2007 at 3 p.m. At that time, the accused

persons who are the workers of BJP, formed themselves into

unlawful assembly with the common object of disrupting the above

public meeting and in prosecution of the common object, trespassed

into the class room wherein the meeting was held, abused PW3

using filthy language, intimidated him and disrupted the meeting.

2024:KER:82587

As per the final report, the offences under Section 143, 147, 448,

294 (b) and 506 (i) IPC and Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of

Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1961 were included.

3. The evidence in this case consist of the oral testimonies of

PWs1 to 10 and documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P3. No

evidence was adduced by the accused persons. After evaluating the

evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused

persons guilty of the offences under Section 143 and 147 of IPC and

under Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public

Meetings Act and acquitted of the other offences. In appeal, the

learned Sessions Judge confirmed the finding of the trial court.

Dissatisfied with the above judgment of the Sessions Judge, the

accused persons 1 to 5 preferred this revision petition raising various

contentions. It is submitted that during the pendency of the revision

petition, the 2nd accused died in the year 2022.

4. Now, the point that arise for consideration is the following:

Whether the impugned judgment of the learned

Sessions Judge confirming the conviction passed by

2024:KER:82587

the learned Magistrate against the revision

petitioners is liable to be interfered with, in the

light of the grounds raised in the revision petition?

5. Heard Adv. Sri. P. Saju on behalf of the revision petitioners

and Smt. Maya M.N., learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The point :- It was argued by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioners that the evidence on record is not sufficient to

prove the offences under Section 143 and 147 IPC and Section 2 of

the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act.

Therefore, he prayed for acquitting the revision petitioners. On the

other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would argue that prosecution

has succeeded in proving the offences under Sections 143 and 147

IPC and Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of

Public Meetings Act. Therefore, she prayed for dismissing the

revision petition.

7. PW1 was the Agricultural Officer. He would swear that on

16.5.2009 a meeting was held under the auspices of the Panchayat

and the Krishi Bhavan. At that time, about 12 persons came there

2024:KER:82587

and disrupted the meeting. He would further claim that the accused

persons snatched away the applications of some of the farmers in

respect of bonus of paddy farmers and for the benefit for cutting and

removing the arecanut trees, damaged due to various diseases.

8. PW2 was the Chairman of the Development Standing

Committee, Pattyam Grama Panchayat. According to him, the

meeting was convened in connection with the 50 th anniversary of

EMS Ministry. While he was attending the meeting, some persons

belonging to Karshakamorcha trespassed into the place of meeting

and disrupted the meeting. According to him, about 50 persons

participated in the protest. During chief examination itself, he

clarified that the above protest was for the reason that the Ward

Member belonging to BJP was not invited for the function.

9. PW3 was the Vice President of Pattyam Gram Panchayat,

who proved Exhibit P1 complaint given to the police in respect of

the above incident. He also would swear that the above meeting

was held in memory of the 50th anniversary of the first Kerala

2024:KER:82587

Government and while the meeting was going on, BJP workers

under the leadership of accused persons trespassed into the meeting

room saying that it is a political meeting and such a meeting cannot

be held there. During the cross examination, he admitted that the

local panchayat member belonged to BJP and because of the above

protest, the meeting could not be completed.

10. PW9 was the Block Panchayat President, Koothuparamba,

who had inaugurated the above meeting. He would swear that while

the meeting was going on, about 20 persons belonging to BJP party

trespassed into the meeting hall and disrupted the meeting on the

ground that the said meeting was held without inviting the local

Panchayat Member.

11. In the final report filed after the investigation, there is no

allegation that the above meeting was convened under the auspices

of the Pattyam Grama Panchayat also. As per the report, the

meeting was convened under the auspices of Krishi Bhavan alone,

while according to PWs 2 and 3 the above meeting was convened to

2024:KER:82587

celebrate the 50th anniversary of EMS Ministry. If so, it can only be

a political meeting. At the same time, according to PW1,

Agricultural Officer, it was held under the auspicess of Krishi

Bhavan. He also claimed that in the said meeting, applications were

called for from the farmers for releasing bonus and other benefits.

Though PW1 claimed that protesters snatched away the applications

from the farmers, none of the farmers were examined in this case.

PWs1 to 3 examined in this case are followers of CPI(M) while the

accused persons belong to the rival party BJP. On an overall

assessment of the evidence on record, it appears that workers of BJP

trespassed into the meeting hall to raise their protest in convening

the meeting of farmers, without inviting the local Panchayat

Member, who belongs to BJP.

12. None of the witnesses deposed that any of the accused

persons used force during the protest. Though learned Public

Prosecutor contended that PW1 deposed that applications were

snatched away from the farmers, as I have already noted above, none

2024:KER:82587

of the farmers were examined to prove that allegation. Moreover, in

the final report, there is no such allegation. If so, it is to be held that

the protest was a peaceful one, for, not inviting the local panchayat

member. Since there is no evidence to prove that any of the accused

persons used force or violence, the offence of rioting as defined

under Section 147 IPC is not attracted in this case.

13. Section 2 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of

Public Meetings Act, 1961 reads as follows:

"2. Penalty on endeavour to break up public meetings.-

(1) Whoever at a public meeting acts in a disorderly manner for the purpose of preventing the transaction of the business for which the meeting was called together shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both. (2) any person who incites others to commit an offence under this section shall be guilty of a like offence. (3) Any Police Officer may arrest without warrant a person who commits an offence under this section.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section

2024:KER:82587

"public meeting" means any meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of nay matter of public concern to which the public or any particular section of the public is invited or admitted."

14. In order to constitute the offence under Section 2 of the

Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act quoted

above, there should be an attempt from the part of the accused

persons to prevent the transaction of the business for which the

meeting was called together. From the evidence of PW1, it is

revealed that there was notice in respect of the above meeting and

there was also minutes in respect of the above meeting. He also

claimed that the above notice and minutes were handed over to the

Investigating Officer. However, those documents were not produced

in this case. In the above circumstances, this Court is not in a

position to ascertain whether the conduct of the accused persons

amount to preventing the transaction of the business for which the