IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2523 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.No.206/2003 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.No.464/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- BALABHADRAN,KARUNAKARAMANGALATHU VEEDU, IDAKIDOM MURI,KAREEPRA,KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EZHUKONE POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2523 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 14th day of August 2009 ORDER Against concurrent finding that petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a stick, a dangerous weapon, petitioner has come in revision. He faced trial in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class -1, Kottarakara in C.C.No.464 of 1997 for offences punishable under sections 447 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 02/03/1997 at about 7.30 a.m petitioner trespassed into the courtyard of PW1 and assaulted PW1, the defacto complainant with the stick. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and proved Exts.P1 to P5. Petitioner contended that over the property allegedly trespassed upon, there is dispute between him and PW1, that property belonged to his wife since the last 30 years and that the civil case was decided in her favour. Learned magistrate acquitted him of the offence under section 447 of the Code but found him guilty under section 324 of the Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. It is contended by learned counsel that conviction of petitioner is not justified on the facts of evidence and that the sentence is excessive. 2. It is not disputed that petitioner and PW1 are closely related. Petitioner is the husband of sister-in-law of PW1. It has also Crl.R.P.No.2523 of 2006 2 come in evidence that between them, there is civil dispute over the property. The evidence of PW.5 and Ext.P4 show that PW1 suffered an abrasion on her left elbow on the day of the incident. PW1 and her son, PW2 have given evidence regarding the alleged incident. They stated that at the relevant time PW1 was engaged in plucking cashew nuts. Petitioner came there and assaulted her with the stick. While undergoing treatment at the hospital, PW1 gave first information (Ext.P1) regarding the incident. That was recorded by PW4, Head Constable who registered the case. 3. It is true that only PWs.1 and 2 gave evidence regarding the alleged incident but, there is no reason to disbelieve them. Their evidence find corroboration from Ext.P4 and evidence of PW5. Courts below found petitioner guilty under section 324 which I find no reason to interfere. 4. It is then contended by learned counsel that sentence imposed is excessive. Learned counsel says that the only son of petitioner died in the year 2008 and that petitioner has wife and two daughters to be looked after. Learned counsel pointed out that injuries suffered by PW1 is simple in nature. Considering that the incident occurred following a civil dispute as to the ownership and possession of the property, parties are closely related and that there is no evidence to show that petitioner is involved in any other case, I am satisfied that Crl.R.P.No.2523 of 2006 3 fine of Rs.3000/- is sufficient in the ends of justice. Out of the fine if realised, Rs.1500/- will be given to PW1 as compensation. Resultantly this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: 1. Sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Code is modified as fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Petitioner is granted time till 14-10-2009 to deposit the fine in the trial court. Out of the fine if realised, Rs.1500/- (Rupees Thousand Five Hundred Only) shall be given to PW1 as compensation under section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. In case of fine as aforesaid if not deposited, petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 15-10-2009 to receive the sentence. Execution of warrant if any against the petitioner will stand in abeyance till 15-10-2009. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/