IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2569 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.998/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.740/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1.CHRISPIN, S/O.PALAYYAN NADAR, MOOLAYITHOTTAM VEEDU, REMESWARAM, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. 2.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.PALAYYAN NADAR, MOOLAYITHOTTAM VEEDU, RAMESWARAM, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. 3.BIJU, S/O.PALAYYAN NADAR, MOOLAYITHOTTAM VEEDU, RAMESWARAM, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. 4. JOY, S/O.VARGHESE, THAITHOTTAM VEEEDU, RAMESWARAM, MARUTHATHOOR DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 31-07-2008 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.740 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the lower appellate court against them for the aforementioned offences . The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: The accused persons attempted to collect fee by way of toll for taking mini lorries across the new bridge constructed at Palakkadavu even before its inauguration. This was questioned by the de facto complainant. On account of the enmity towards him the four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt to P.W.1 at about 11 p.m. on 28-10-2001 criminally trespassed into the courtyard of P.W.1's house armed with chopper etc. The first accused dealt a blow on the head of P.W.1 with the chopper. A2 dealt a blow on his left cheek with a chopper. A3 also dealt a blow on his left hand with a chopper. A4 beat him with a Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 -:2:- stick on the head resulting in P.W.1 sustaining injuries. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 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 him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 25-09-2006 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 448 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 326 I.P.C. Out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Sessions Judge Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 -:3:- converted the conviction under Sec. 448 into one punishable under Sec 447 I.P.C. and sentenced each of the revision petitioners to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and for the conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one month only and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on failure to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month by way of default sentence. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner 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 Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 -:4:- view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners for the conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. is set aside and instead each of the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine and on default to pay the fine each of them shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. The fine amount shall be deposited before the courts below within 30 days from today . From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani.