IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2278 of 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.254/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.321/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------- SASI, S/O.VASUDEVAN, KOTTOOR VADAKKETHIL, PATHIYOOR PANCHAYATH WARD NO.VI, PATHIYOOR THOTTAM MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs V. RAMKUMAR, J. ............................................... Crl. R.P. NO. 2278 of 2009 ............................................ Dated: 8th December, 2010 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. 321 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Haripad, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishabale under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- Out of previous enmity towards P.W.1 and with the intention of voluntarily causing grevious hurt to P.W.1, on 31-12- 2003 at about 6.45 p.m. the accused slapped P.W.1 on his left cheek and bit off a portion of the lobe of the right ear of P.W.1. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused Crl.R.P. No. 2278 of 2009 -:2:- was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He produced 3 documents as Exts. D1 to D3 when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 13-05-2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 325 I.P.C and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The compensation if not paid shall be realised to P.W.1. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are directed to be run concurrently. Set off also is allowed. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Alapapuzha, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge,I, Mavelikkara, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 26-2-2009 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the Crl.R.P. No. 2278 of 2009 -:3:- revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently 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. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interests justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 323 I.P.C. For his conviction under Sec. 325 I.P.C., the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- of which Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and the balance amount Crl.R.P. No. 2278 of 2009 -:4:- shall be credited to the State. Petitioner is given two months time to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani.