IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2585 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.137/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.454/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- HARI KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMANAN PILLAI, MALAKKATTU HOUSE, ARAYANKAVU, AMBALOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 2585 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 04-08-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 454 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Vaikom for an offence punishable under Section 332 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offence. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. What has been unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following:- P.W.9 a woman police constable was on traffic control duty at Vaikom private bus stand on 5-5-2003. At that time the petitioner herein and his brother the absconding first accused after consuming liquor were causing disturbance to the passengers. P.W.9 informed the matter to the police station. The Assistant Sub Inspector along with his police party came and took the revision petitioner and the first accused to the police station. After reaching the police station, both the revision petitioner and the first accused kicked and beat PWs Crl.R..P. No. 2585 of 2008 -:2:- 5 and 11 who are police constables. P.W.5 had a lacerated injury 2 x 1 cms. on the lower lip of P.W5 and a contusion 2x1 c.m. on the face besides pain on the head and shoulder. P.W.11 had an abrasion 2x1 cm near his nasal orifice . The above injuries were confirmed by Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates. 5. The learned Magistrate split up the case against A1 who was absconding and convicted the revision petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 332 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. On appeal preferred by him before the Sessions Court, Kottayam as Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2007 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, as per judgment dated 26-06-2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. The conviction has been recorded by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 6. What now survives for consideration is the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The fact that the petitioner along with his brother attacked the policemen after they were taken to the police station shows the daring manner in which the petitioner and his brother conducted themselves. It was on account of the drunken conduct of the petitioner and his brother that the woman police constable informed the police station resulting in the police reaching Crl.R..P. No. 2585 of 2008 -:3:- the spot and taking them to the police station. Instead of behaving as law abiding citizens they opened an aggression at the policemen on duty in the police station. Penal servitude by way of incarceration alone can serve as an effective disincentive against such conduct. However, the petitioner does not deserve imprisonment for one year, Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner is reduced to simple imprisonment for three months. He is also directed to pay a fine of Rs. Rs. 3000/- from which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and a sum of Rs. 500/- respectively shall be given as compensation to P.Ws 5 and 11 under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.R..P. No. 2585 of 2008 -:4:-