IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 682 of 2001(L) ------------------------------ CRA.241/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.77/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS - ACCUSED --------------------- 1. LEELA @ SEENATH, W/O. RAFEEKH, SMITHA BHAVAN, CHERUTHONI KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE. 2. RAFEEKH, S/O. RASHEED, SMITHA BHAVAN, CHERUTHONI KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.RAJESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT - COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. -------------------------------------- CRL.R.P. 682 OF 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.77 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki and the appellants in Crl.A. 241/1996 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, are convicted by the trial court under secs.341, 326 and 294(b) IPC read with sec.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more. The conviction was confirmed by the lower appellate court but the sentence was modified to the effect that the substantive sentence is reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioners challenge their conviction and sentence in this revision petition. 2. The case of the prosecution as testified by the de facto complainant as PW.1 before the trial court was that the revision petitioners/accused persons who are husband and wife wrongfully restrained her on the western side of the road portion at Cheruthonikara at Cheruthoni-Kattappana public road at about 7 CRL.R.P. 682 OF 2001 2 a.m. on January 20, 1994 and the second accused uttered obscene words and the 1st accused beat on the right hand of PW.1 with a stick causing fracture of the bone and thereby committed offences punishable under secs.341, 326 and 294(b) IPC read with sec.34 IPC. 3. Pws.1 to 8 were examined, Exts.P1 to P5 were marked and M.O.1 was produced by the prosecution before the magistrate. When questioned under sec.313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons submitted that this is a case fabricated against them by PW.1 in connivance with the forest officials. Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the accused persons before the lower court. The learned Magistrate on an appreciation of evidence found the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under secs.341 and 326 IPC read with sec.34 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence was awarded to the accused persons under sec.341 IPC by the magistrate. The magistrate found them not guilty of the charge under sec.294(b) IPC. Now the accused persons have CRL.R.P. 682 OF 2001 3 come up in revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that there was delay of more than one month in filing the complaint and also the prosecution has not explained the second injury mentioned in the wound certificate Ext.P5 and that on that ground itself the revision petitioners should be acquitted of the charge. 5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners by the trial court which was confirmed in appeal can be sustained. 6. I have gone through the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and the judgment of the trial court as well as that of the appellate court. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction entered by both the courts below. As regards the contention of the revision petitioners that there was delay of more than one month in filing the complaint by PW.1 which itself shows that PW.1 has fabricated this case against the revision petitioners, I find no merit in the above contention. PW.1 has explained the cause for the delay by stating that she was CRL.R.P. 682 OF 2001 4 under the impression that the police would have charged a case against the revision petitioners. Further, it is seen from Ext.P5 wound certificate and the evidence of the doctor (PW.6) that she was admitted in the hospital on the date of the incident itself and PW.1 has stated to the doctor that she had been assaulted by the revision petitioners. Therefore I am unable to accept the above contention raised by the revision petitioners. No other point is urged before me. In view of the above findings I find no reason to interfere with the conviction entered by the trial court which is confirmed by the lower appellate court. 7. As regards the sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellate court has reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. The incident occurred on January 20, 1994, about 14 years ago. The 1st revision petitioner is a lady aged 30 years at the time of the incident. Further, the 2nd revision petitioner is only a coolie. He is undergoing treatment for anxiety neurosis as seen from the documents produced before CRL.R.P. 682 OF 2001 5 the trial court. Taking into consideration all these facts, I feel that imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each would meet the ends of justice. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW.1, the injured, as compensation as provided under sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. In the result the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioners under sec.341 and 326 IPC read with sec.34 IPC is confirmed. The sentence is modified to the effect that they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. The revision petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court on or before 30.9.2009 to undergo the sentence. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW.1, the injured, as compensation as provided under sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-