The revision petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by conviction under Sections 448, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”). The conviction was confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.291 of 1996 before the Court of Sessions, Thalassery.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner expired on 05.06.2007. Learned Public Prosecutor also confirmed this fact. The sentence in this case takes in imprisonment and fine. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the matter has been abated. Hence, I considered the materials elaborately.
3. The allegation against the revision petitioner was that on 25.03.1991 at about 5.30 p.m., he made an immoral and prurient request to his sister-in-law. She refused to accede to his lascivious demand. Infuriated accused trespassed into her house and voluntarily caused simple and grievous hurt by kicking and beating her with a splinter.
4. Court below examined 12 witnesses and marked seven documents on the side of the prosecution. There was no defence evidence.
Court below relying on the testimony of the injured witness (PW1) and testimony of PW6 convicted the revision petitioner for the aforesaid offences. In the first appeal, learned Sessions Judge re- appreciated the evidence and found that there is no illegality in the finding of the court below. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner is no more and also that there is no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the courts below, I find that the revision petition is devoid of any merit. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks.
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
Crl.R.P.No.1477 of 2003 ORDER 19th November, 2014