Kerala High Court
Roy Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2024
2024:KER:83863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO.1010 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS - I,
MAVELIKKARA IN CRL.APPEAL NO.416 OF 2012 WHICH AROSE IN CC
NO.329 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II,
MAVELIKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ROY THOMAS
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, SHAJI BHAVANAM,PALLICKAL MURI,
PANAYIL POST, PALAMEL VILLAGE,
MAVELIKARA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADV.
SRI.A.C.DEVY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 682 031
C.N. PRABHAKARAN - SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83863
2
Crl.R.P.No.1010 of 2015
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1010 of 2015
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024
ORDER
The concurrent findings leading to the conviction and
sentence of the petitioner for an offence under Section 509 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are under challenge in this revision
petition filed invoking the provisions of Section 397 and 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The indictment against the petitioner was that at
about 3.00 p.m on 21.07.2010, he showed his nudity to PW1
who was drawing water from the well in the premises of the
house where the petitioner was residing as a tenant. Besides
PW1, her brother PW2 also deposed about the incident before
the trial court. Believing their evidence and taking in account
attending circumstances the trial court found the petitioner
guilty of the offence under Section 509 of the IPC. He was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-. The appellate court
confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence.
2024:KER:83863
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my
attention to the inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2
in order to contend that the conviction is against evidence. It is
urged that when PW1 stated that so many times similar act was
done by the petitioner, but she did not raise any objection or
make any complaint, the incident she narrated cannot be
believed. It is further submitted that having considered the
location of the well, the house of the petitioner and the direction
in which one to draw water from the well, a possibility of PW1
naturally viewing the petitioner is showing his nudity was quite
remote. Unless PW1 voluntarily looked at, she would not have
witnessed such an act. It is further urged that from the
evidence it is not clear where was the petitioner while
committing the alleged act and hence, it has to be inferred that
he was inside the house at that time. Also, it was submitted
that the attempt of PW1's husband to evict the petitioner from
the tenanted premises is quite evident from the evidence on
record and that substantiates the case of the defence that this
2024:KER:83863
case was a foisted one.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor contradicts the said
submissions. The version of PWs 1 and 2 are consistent
concerning the fact that the petitioner did the offending act
standing outside the building. When the evidence spells out
that PW2 who reached the spot along with the husband of PW1
chased the petitioner to his house, there is no reason to doubt
the veracity of PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of both PWs 1 and 2
in regard to the material particulars is cogent and consistent
and therefore the concurrent findings rendered by the courts
below cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional
power, the learned Public Prosecutor submits.
6. I have gone through the oral testimonies of PWs 1
and 2, Ext.P1 FI statement and also the scene mahazar, Ext.P3.
The evidence concerning the core of allegations that the
petitioner showed his nudity is supported by cogent evidence.
Despite the inconsistencies in the evidence, the versions of PW1
in that regard can be believed. Therefore, the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC cannot
be interfered with.
2024:KER:83863
7. Enmity between the parties is evident from the
version of PWs 1 and 2 itself. Although it is alleged that similar
incidents occurred earlier, evidence in that regard is not
consistent. So for the solitary incident of the present nature,
sentencing of the petitioner who already had shifted his
residence from the house in question is unwanted. I take such
a view also for the reason that 14 years are already over after
the incident.
In the circumstances, while confirming the conviction of
the petitioner for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC, the
sentence is modified. The petitioner need not be incarcerated.
Hence the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till
the rise of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default
of payment of fine, petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
PV
