IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 440 of 2006() ----------------------------- C.C.NO.221 OF 2001 ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.C.M, VADAKARA CRA NO.361/2004 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (AD HOC I), KOZHIKODE REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. PRAMOD KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHOOTUPARAMBATH, AZHIYUR. 2. SAJEEVAN, S/O.GOPI, MEETHALA KAKKATTIL, AZHIYUR. 3. AJITHKUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, AZHIYUR. 4. ROOPESH, S/O.GOVINDAN, KOKKERI MADATHIL HOUSE, AZHIYUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, EDACHERI, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.440 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29 th day of July, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioners,who are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No.221 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Vadakara for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 427, 506(i) read with 149 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 8.9.2000 at about 11 pm the 4 accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to commit mischief, trespassed into the property of the railways and damaged the warning board exhibited near the 3rd railway gate at Mahe and also criminally trespassed into the railway quarters compound and caused damaged to the cultivation effected by PW1 near his quarters. The accused had also uttered obscene words at PW1 and had criminally intimidated him by threatening him to death. Crl.R.P.No. 440 of 2006 2 The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them 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 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 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 30.04.2004 acquitted the revision petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC but convicted them of the offences punishable under Section 447 and 427 read with 34 IPC. For the conviction under Section 447 IPC each of them was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Crl.R.P.No. 440 of 2006 3 three months and for the conviction under Section 427 read with 149 IPC each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Fast Track (Ad hoc)No.I, Kozhikode as Crl. Appeal No.361 of 2004, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.12.2005 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 Crl.R.P.No. 440 of 2006 4 petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead for the conviction under Section 447 IPC each of them is sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and on failure to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. For the conviction under Section 427 IPC each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj