IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1250 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.640/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.292/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGEKUTTAN, S/O. GHEEVARGHESE, MILLUVILAVEETIL, CHIRATTAKONAM MURI, VETTIKAVALA VILLAGE. 2. KUNJAPPI, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, KOONOOR VEEDU, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. MR. T.R.ASWAS RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1250 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 292 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of their previous enemity, accused Nos. 1 to 4 in prosecution of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to PW1, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of PW1's house armed with deadly weapons such as stick, iron rod etc. at 1 p.m on 29.12.2002 at Thalachiramuri of Vettikavala village and A1 inflicted a blow on the head of PW1 with an iron rod resulting in PW1 sustaining injury to his head and fell down. A2 to A4 inflicted blows on several parts of body of PW1. When PW5, the mother of PW1 Crl.R.P. No. 1250/2010 -:2:- intervened, A1 inflicted a blow on the head of PW2 also with an iron rod resulting in she sustaining a head injury. The accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 447 ad 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. 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 9 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8. 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 26.10.2007 found the revision petitioners not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC, but convicted them of Crl.R.P. No. 1250/2010 -:3:- the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. For the said conviction, each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 640 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 26.11.2009 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 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 Crl.R.P. No. 1250/2010 -:4:- 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- and Rs.4000/- respectively to PWs 1 and 5, the injured as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On failure to pay the compensation, the defaulting petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The petitioners are given 45 days from today to deposit the compensation amount. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 1250/2010 -:5:-