IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 152 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRA.363/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY CC.36/2006 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O.MAHADAVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, PANNIYODAN KELOTH HOUSE, PERALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,SHO- PANOOR POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No.152 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17 th day of January, 2011. O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 509 of I.P.C. 2. The allegation against the revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.36/2006 of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, is that on 10.01.2005 at about 10.30 a.m, while PW1 was on her duty, at the line leading Panoor bhagam, that begin from the road which lies about 50 meters north east of the bus shelter attached to Panoor bus station, the revision petitioner/accused winked at her and invited her to his residence stating that nobody there in his house and according to the prosecution by the above act of the revision petitioner, he insulted the modesty of PW1 who was working as a woman constable. 3. On the basis of the said allegation, Crime No.11/2005 was registered in the Panoor Police Station, for Crl. R.P. No.152/2011 2 the offence under Section 509 I.P.C, based upon which investigation was under taken and finally laid a report before the trial court, on the basis of which cognizance was taken and instituted C.C.No.36/2006. During the trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined from the side of the prosecution and marked Exts.P1 and P2. No evidence adduced from the side of the defence. The trial court finally convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 509 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 9 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The default sentence is fixed as one month simple imprisonment. 4. Though an appeal was filed at the instance of the revision petitioner, against the above conviction and sentence, by Judgment dated 29.10.2010 in Crl.Appeal No.363/2006, the court of Sessions, Thalassery dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned Crl. R.P. No.152/2011 3 Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, if this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, in the matter of sentence, a lenient view may be taken, particularly considering the fact that the revision petitioner is now at the age of 40 and he is leading a peaceful family life. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively. On a reading of Section 509, it can be seen that discretion is granted to the convicting court to impose substantial sentence of maximum one year imprisonment or fine or with both. Though the trial court has assigned reason for imposing such punishment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially in the light of the fact that the revision petitioner is leading a peaceful family life and he is now only at the age of 40 years, I am of the view that the sentence of fine above is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Crl. R.P. No.152/2011 4 In the result, while confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 509 of I.P.C as recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the sentence is modified and accordingly, in suppression of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the fine amount within one month from today. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner, in depositing the fine amount within one month from today, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and for realization of the fine amount. Sd/- (V.K.MOHANAN), Judge. ss/. //True Copy// P.A to Judge