Kerala High Court
Mansoor vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
1
2025:KER:69658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2006 IN CRL.A NO.236
OF 2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2006 IN CC NO.350 OF 2005 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PAYYOLI
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:
1 MANSOOR, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNHI,
PANCHAYTH PRESIDENT, MELADATH HOUSE,
VELOOR AMSOM, DESOM, ATHOLI.
2 ANILKUMAR, S/O. AYILANDY
PANCHAYATH MEMBER, CHERIYERIKUNI HOUSE,
VELOOR AMSOM, DESOM.
BY ADV SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
2
2025:KER:69658
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
3
2025:KER:69658
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.350
of 2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Payoli (for short, 'the trial court'). They faced trial for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447 and 427
r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 ( for short, 'P.D.P.P. Act').
2. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners,
along with the remaining accused, formed an unlawful assembly
armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of their common
object, trespassed into the compound of the KSEB office, Atholi,
on 31.08.2002 at about 7.20 p.m., and committed mischief
causing loss of Rs.3,000/- to the KSEB.
3. After trial, the trial court found the petitioners guilty
for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148 and 447 r/w
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
2025:KER:69658
Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of P.D.P.P. Act r/w 149 of
IPC and they were convicted and sentenced for the said offences.
The accused Nos.3 to 13 were found not guilty of all the offences
charged against them and they were acquitted. The petitioners
challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before
the Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short, 'the appellate court') in
Crl.A.No.236 of 2006. The appellate court set aside the
conviction and sentence under Section 148 r/w Section 149 of
IPC, retaining the conviction and sentence of the remaining
offences. This revision petition has been filed challenging the
judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.
4. I have heard Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri.E.C.Bineesh., the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
impeached the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
2025:KER:69658
court on the appreciation of evidence and resultant findings as to
the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that conviction was
based solely on the evidence of two official witnesses, who were
examined as PWs 5 and 6, that too contradictory. The learned
counsel further submitted that there was no dock identification
of the petitioners. The learned counsel also submitted that no
documentary evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to
prove that the place where the alleged incident took place was a
public property and hence the conviction under the P.D.P.P Act
cannot be sustained. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on
the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down
by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that
necessary ingredients of Sections 143, 148 and 447 r/w Section
149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(a) of P.D.P.P. Act r/w 149 of IPC had
been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving
the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Prosecutor
further submitted that re-appreciation of evidence is not
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
2025:KER:69658
permissible in revision.
6. As stated already, the alleged incident took place at
the office of the KSEB, Atholi. The time of incident was at 07.20
p.m. The prosecution allegation is that around 100 people who
came as a procession, armed with deadly weapons, trespassed
into the compound of the KSEB office and committed mischief.
Only PWs 5 and 6 supported the prosecution case. They are
police officers deputed on duty at the KSEB office on that day.
Both of them admitted that at the time of the alleged incident,
there was no power at the KSEB office. They also admitted that
apart from the petitioners, they could not identify the others.
Their evidence would further show that they recognized the
petitioners only for the reason that they happened to be the
President and a member of the Pachayath. Eventhough, PWs 5
and 6 deposed that they knew accused Nos.1 and 2 who were part
of the procession and trespassed into the KSEB office, they did
not specifically identify the accused in the dock. The 2 nd
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
2025:KER:69658
petitioner was not present when PWs 5 and 6 were examined.
There were altogether 13 accused. PWs 5 and 6 did not
specifically point out the 1st petitioner in the dock and identify
him. The absence of such dock identification assumes
significance for the reason that admittedly there were about 100
persons in the procession and PWs 5 and 6 could not identify the
remaining accused. That apart, a reading of the evidence of PWs
5 and 6 would show that they could not state who exactly caused
the damage to the properties of the KSEB. No specific overt act
has been alleged against the petitioners. There is yet another
aspect. All the remaining accused were acquitted. Now, the
unlawful assembly has been reduced to two persons. There is no
evidence on record to show that the petitioners shared any
common intention with others. No overt act has been alleged or
proved against the remaining accused by any of the witnesses.
7. In these circumstances, I am of the view it is a fit case
where the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4234 OF 2006
2025:KER:69658
petitioners. The prosecution has not succeeded in proving the
case against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence against the
petitioners are hereby set aside. The petitioners are found not
guilty of the offences charged against them and they are
acquitted.
The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
