IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1009 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.421/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SC.14/1991 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED 4 AND 5: -------------------------------------- 1. MOHANAN, S/O.SADASIVAN, MOHANAVILASAM, PANTHAPALAYIKONAM, NELLANADU MURI, PULLEMPARA VILLAGE. 2. SUDEVAN, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KANNATTU VEEDU, PANTHAPALAYIKONAM, NELLANADU MURI, PULLEMPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) 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 COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 1009 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revion petitioners, who are accused 4 and 5 in S.C.No.14/91 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,342 and 307 read with section 149 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently for an offence punishable under Section 342 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows: All the five accused persons who are members of the Congress party formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, the 1st accused stabbed PW2, a CITU worker, on the right side of his chest with a knife due Crl.R.P. 1009/09 -2- to political rivalry at about 10 a.m. on 13-8-1990 on the Kuttimoodu-Vellumanadi road. 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 ten witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked seven documents as Exts. P1 to P7. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons 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 23-9-2000 found the revision Crl.R.P. 1009/09 -3- petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 342 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, along with accused Nos.2 and 3, as Crl.A. No.421/2000, the lower appellate court, as per judgment dated 31-12-2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though 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 Crl.R.P. 1009/09 -4- 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 hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead they are sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- each to PW2, the injured under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and on default of payment of the compensation, the revision petitioners shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petitioners are given one month's time to deposit the compensation before the trial court. Crl.R.P. 1009/09 -5- 8. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.