IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1631 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.388/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.530/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O.CHELLAYYAN NADAR, POTTAYIKADA PUTHEN VEEDU, ERICHALLOOR DESOM, KARODU VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRABABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 1631 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 27-5-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C. No.530 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Neyyattinkara, for offences punishable under Sections 324, 447 and 427 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 and 427 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 2-4-1994 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused out of prvious enmity towards P.W.1 (Omana) trespassed into the courtyard of P.W.1 and hit her with the handle of a spade below her collar bone causing swelling and pain to her. The accused also hit on her left chin and left hand and caused abrasion and swelling on those portions. When P.W.2 (Anil Kumar) intervened to rescue P.W.1 he was also beaten up with the handle of a spade. Since P.W.2 warded off the same he sustained injuries on his right hand below the elbow. The Crl.R.P. No. 1631 of 2008 -:2:- companion accused persons pelted stones on the house and on the latrines causing the breakage of 47 tiles resulting P.W.1 sustaining a loss of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The only person who faced the trial was the first accused/revision petitioner. On the revision petitioner/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 9 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 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 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 19th May 2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 447 and 427 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer Crl.R.P. No. 1631 of 2008 -:3:- simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay the fine simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 447 I.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Addl. Sessions Court (Fast Track - III) Adhoc, Thiruvananthapuram, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated, 17-03-2008 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough 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 view that interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a Crl.R.P. No. 1631 of 2008 -:4:- sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 324 I.P.C. The sentence imposed of the revision petitioner under Sec. 447 Cr.P.C. is not interfered with. He shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within one month from today. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 4,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 the injured by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid to P.W.2, the other injured. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.R.P. No. 1631 of 2008 -:5:-