IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 569 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.48/2008 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.222/2004 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOTHAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1, 3 AND 4:- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUTTAPPAN, S/O. KANDAN PILLAI, KOMARAPILLY HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, NELLIKKAPARAMBU HOUSE, THEVAKKAL KARA, THRIKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE. 3. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. KUTTAN, NELLIKKAPARAMBU HOUSE, THEVAKKAL KARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR. MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT AND STATE:- ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY SI OF POLICE, KOTTAPPADY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 569 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in C.C. No.222 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam for offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 341 r/w Section 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 11.04.2004, at about 10.30 p.m., the four accused persons out of their enemity towards the de facto complainant PW1, criminally trespassed into his residential house bearing building No.313/III of Kottappady Panchayat and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by A1 beating him with a stem of a Casia plant on the left side of his forehead and A2 to A4 kicked and fisted him. The accused have thereby committed the aforesaid Crl.R.P. No. 569/2010 -:2:- offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the 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 19.12.2007 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to Crl.R.P. No. 569/2010 -:3:- pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 452 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 48 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the II Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the conviction entered, but reduced the sentence to one month each and enhanced the fine under Section 452 IPC to Rs.3000/-. 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 Crl.R.P. No. 569/2010 -:4:- petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for their conviction under Section 323 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For their conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of them is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For their conviction under Section 452 IPC, each of the petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- to PW1, the injured under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On default to pay the compensation, the defaulting accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine as well as the compensation shall be deposited before the court below within 45 days from today. Amounts, if any, deposited before the trial court pursuant to orders of court Crl.R.P. No. 569/2010 -:5:- shall be adjusted towards the fine/compensation payable by the revision petitioner. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv