IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1665 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.701/2006 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.612/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ SHIYAD, S/O.BASHEER, NADUTHALAKKUDIYIL VEEDU, PORUMATAM KARA, VELLOORKKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.1665 of 2007 =================== Dated: 11.04.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.612 of 2002. on the file of the J.F.C.M, Muvattupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 323 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: Owing to non payment of money after purchasing milk, the accused on 4.4.02 at 7.45 a.m wrongfully restrained PW1, caught hold of the neck of PW1 and pushed him to the ground and thereafter kicked him on his stomach causing damage to internal organs. The accused has thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned Cr.R.P.No.1665 of 2008 -:2:- offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 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 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 8.8.06, acquitted the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. but convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days and to pay a fine of Rs.1500/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for five days. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 28.2.07 confirmed the Cr.R.P.No.1665 of 2008 -:3:- conviction entered and sentence of imprisonment passed against the revision petitioner, but reduced the fine amount from Rs.1500/- to Rs.1000/-. Hence, this Revision. 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves 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 Cr.R.P.No.1665 of 2008 -:4:- revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation or Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. . He has already deposited RS.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) imposed by the trial court. He shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) within one month from today by way of compensation under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C and on default to pay the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The entire compensation amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ Cr.R.P.No.1665 of 2008 -:5:- sj