IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1905 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.49/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM CC.196/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- SUBRAMONIYAN ASARI, S/O.MADHAVAN ASARI, VISWA VIHAR, THALLACHIRA, KOTTAKONAM MURI, VITHURA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1905 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C. No.197 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 02.01.1997, at about 8 p.m., the revision petitioner/accused on account of his previous enemity towards PWs 1 and 2 who are husband and wife and his neighbours, called obscene words at PW1 and beat PW1 with MO1 stick of rubber tree resulting in PW1 sustaining grievous injury involving his left eye and left forearm and seeing the attack on PW1, when his wife PW2 intervened, the accused beat her also twice as a result of which she sustained injuries on the right elbow and right knee. On account of the attack PW1 lost his sight of left eye permanently. The accused has thereby committed the aforementioned offences. CRL.R.P. NO. 1905/2008 :2: 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 9 witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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 examined a neighbour by name Devadhas as DW1. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 15.01.2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW1 and Rs.1000/- to PW2 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the judgment, he preferred an appeal as Crl. Appeal No. 49 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. As per judgment dated 22.10.2007 the said appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 1905/2008 :3: 6. Even though 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 326 IPC is set aside and he is sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone by him since 10.06.2008 onwards and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to PW1 and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to PW2 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The amount of compensation shall be deposited within three months from today CRL.R.P. NO. 1905/2008 :4: failing which the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. His release shall, however, by subject to his liability to pay the compensation amount within three months from today as indicated above. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv