IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1912 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.487/2006 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM C.C. NO. 1105/2001 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------------------------- P.ARUNKUMAR @ SADASIVAN, S/O RAJAPPAN, VADAKKEDATH VEEDU, KUMBALAM DESOM, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA -REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1912 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 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 1st accused in C.C. No.1105 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 324, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 6.11.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the building bearing No. 11/303 of Kumbalam village, wherein PW2 was conducting a pappadam manufacturing unit in the name and style of 'A Class Pappadam Works' and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1 by A1 hitting him on his face with an iron lock resulting in his loss of an incisor, tooth and caused hurt to PW2 by beating on his left hand with an iron rod used as a deadly weapon and A2 and A3 brandished a knife and put PWs 1 and 2 under fear of death and the accused persons CRL.R.P. No. 1912/2008 :2: thereafter committed mischief in the building causing a loss to the tune of Rs.2000/- to PW2. 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 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and 3 material objects as Mos. 1 to 3. 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 did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 18.05.2006 acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3, but convicted the revision petitioner/1st accused of offences punishable under Sections 452 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the said offences and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six CRL.R.P. No. 1912/2008 :3: months. From out of the fine amount, Rs.15000/- was directed to be paid to PW1 and Rs.5000/- was directed to be paid to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner was acquitted of the other offences namely Sections 324, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 487/2006 before the IV Addl. Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 11.04.2008 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision. 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 CRL.R.P. No. 1912/2008 :4: 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 is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under Sections 452 and 326 IPC. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 and a sum of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) shall be paid to PW2 by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be deposited before the court below within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv