IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 489 of 2005(A) ------------------------------ CRA.271/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II),THODUPUZHA CC.66/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. JOHNY, S/O.CHACKO, KATTUKUDIYI HOUSE, VENMATTAM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE. 2. GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, KOZHIPPILLIL HOUSE, VENMATTOM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 489 of 2005 ````````````````` Dated: 6-4-2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No. 66 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Thodupuzha, for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the lower appellate court for an offence punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 23-11-1999 at about 2.30 p.m. at Venmattom the two accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language and voluntarily caused hurt to him by A1 cutting him with a chopper on his shoulder and A1 beating him with a stick. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P. 489 of 2005 -:2:- offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 13 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 13 and and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1to P8 and 5 material documents as Mos 1 to 5. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 30-09-2003 found the revision petitioners guilty of both the offences and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for one week under Sec. 294 (b) and simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and in default to pay the fine simple imprisonment for two months. The fine amount is directed to be paid as compensation to P.W,.1 the injured. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 12-1-2005 Crl.R.P. 489 of 2005 -:3:- acquitted the revision petitioners of the offence punishable under Sec. 294 (b) but confirmed the conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. but reduced the imprisonment to simple imprisonment for one month and the fine to Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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 petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed Crl.R.P. 489 of 2005 -:4:- hereinafter. Accordingly, for their conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioners are sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation payable to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The petitioners are given one month's time to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)failing which they shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani.