IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1028 of 1997() ------------------------------ CRA.97/1993 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.114/1991 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. SELVAN, S/O. RAJAN KOUNDER, KOVILPALAYAM, ELAPULLY. 2. RAJENDRAN, S/O. RAJU KOUNDER, KOVILPALAYAM, ELAPULLY. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASBA POLICE STATION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 1028/1997 : 2 : ORDER ON Crl.M.A. NO.5965/2008 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 1028/1997 DISMISSED 03.07.2008 sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1028 of 1997 ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who were the accused in C.C. No.114 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- III, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 325 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the altered conviction under Sections 447, 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC recorded by the lower appellate court and the sentence imposed by the said court. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 12.10.1990, at about 6.30 p.m., the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to wreak vengeance on PW1, for abusing the daughter-in-law of PW1, unlawfully trespassed into the house of PW1 at Elappully village in Kovilpalayam. A1 restrained PW1 and A2 fisted on the face of PW1 on account of which two teeth of PW1 fell down and he was injured. The accused have thereby committed offences CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :2: punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 325 r/w Section 34 IPC. 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 10 witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and two teeth as MO1 series. 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 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 08.07.1993 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 325 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 341 and 447 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :3: revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 97 of 1993 before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the First Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 06.10.1997 altered the conviction under Section 325 to Section 323 IPC and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 323 IPC. The sentence imposed with regard to the other offences was confirmed. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though 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 petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :4: 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 petitioners is set aside and instead each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) under Section 323 IPC payable to the legal heirs of PW1 who is no more. For the conviction under Sections 341 and 447 IPC, each of the petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each and on default to pay the fine, the defaulting accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The fine as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court 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 3rd day of July, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :5: V. RAMKUMAR, J ------------------------------------ CRL. R.P. No. 1028 of 1997 ---------------------------------------- 3rd day of July, 2008 ORDER