IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2067 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA NO.215/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, MAVELIKKARA CC NO.318/2005 OF JFCM, KAYAMKULAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOCHUVEETILTHEKKATHIL, NORTH OF ANCHUMURIKADA, CHETTIKULANGARA PANCHAYATH WARD 5, EREZHA VADAKKUM MURI, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU M.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): STATE COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2067 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 23.02. 2010 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the 2nd accused in C.C. No.318 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Kaayamkulam for offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On account of previous enmity towards PW1 Sivaraman, the accused persons four in number in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained PW1 at about 9 p.m on 26.3.2005 near Chettikulangara market. A1 caught hold of the shirt of PW1 and beat him on his face and A2 and A3 held PW1 enabling A1 to beat him . A4 also beat PW1 with an iron rod and inflicted injury. A1 kicked PW1 and A2 and A3 beat PW1 with their bare hands and inflicted injuries. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P.No.2067/2009 -:2:- offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 4 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was 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 22.02.2007 found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty of the offences and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and each of the accused persons was directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/-each to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused Nos.1 to 3 filed appeals before the Sessions Court, Mavelikkara as Crl.Appeal Nos.209 and 215 of 2007. The lower appellate court as per common judgment dated 31.03.2009 Crl.R.P.No.2067/2009 -:3:- dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them. Hence, this Revision by the 2nd accused. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the 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. This Court had called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Alappuzha. The said report shows that it was certain tragedies in life that led to serious mental stress and that proper interview and guidance for opening Savings Account may lead him to build savings mentality, responsibility towards his family and future life. The District Probation Officer has recommended release of the petitioner on probation with an order of supervision under Section 4(3) of the Crl.R.P.No.2067/2009 -:4:- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on his executing a bond for such amount as may be prescribed by the trial court and subject to such conditions as the Magistrate may impose. During the said period of two years, the revision petitioner shall be subject to supervision by the District Probation Officer, Alappuzha before whom he shall report once in two weeks or as directed by the Magistrate. The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court within two weeks from today for executing the bond under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to PW1 under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The said compensation shall be paid within two months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but directing the release of the petitioner on probation and directing him to pay compensation tom PW1, the injured. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2067/2009 -:5:-