IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2010 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3126 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CC.NO. 2045 OF 2003 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, ERNAKULAM. --------- CRL .APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2009 OF THE COURT ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ( ADHOC-II) ERNAKULAM. ---------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS 1 & 2/A1 & A2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PALLITHRIKOVIL VEETTIL, NEAR ST.REETHAS SCHOOL, PONNURUNNI, POONITHURA VILLAGE. 2. SURESH, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, PALLITHRIKOVIL VEETTIL, NEAR ST.REETHAS SCHOOL, PONNURUNNI, POONITHURA VILLAGE. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI. M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI. UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3126 of 2010 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 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 Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No.2045 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 read with 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 read with 34 IPC 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 12.8.2003 at about 7 pm when PW1 went to his house after closing his shop and reached the Palarivattom-Vytilla road near the N.S.S Karayogam building, A1 and A2 out of their enmity towards PW1 fisted him and pushed him to the floor and when PW1 tried to run away, A3 restrained him and thereafter A1 hit him on the forehead as well as the chest with a stone picked up from the road and PW1 fell down and lost two of his teeth. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P.No.3126/2010 -:2:- 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 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 31.07.2009 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341,324,323 read with 34 I.P.C. For their conviction under Section 324 read with 34 IPC, the revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `2000/- each and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. For their conviction under Section 341 IPC they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. There was no separate sentence under Section 323 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.3126/2010 -:3:- Out of the fine amount `5000/- was directed to be given to PW1 as compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court(Adhoc-II), Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 16.08.2010 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. 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 petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interest of justice Crl.R.P.No.3126/2010 -:4:- will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside. For their conviction under Section 323 IPC each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of `5000/- out of which 50% thereof shall be paid to PW1/injured as compensation amount and balance 50% shall ; be credited to the State. The sentence imposed under Section 341 IPC is not interfered with. The petitioners are given one month's time from today to remit the compensation as well as fine. In the event of default in paying the compensation, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Amounts, if any, deposited by the petitioners shall be given credit to while enforcing the compensation and also fine. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 6 th day of December, 2010. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj