IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1701 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.403/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.64/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, KISHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ARUVIKUZHY, KARIPOOR MURI, KARIPOOR VILLAGE. 2. SAJI @ KUTTAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN ASARI, SAJI NIVAS, VANDA PARANDODE, THIKKUMKARA MURI, KARIPOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl. R.P. NO. 1701 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 30-05-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.64 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Nedumangadu for an offence punishable under Section 332 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offences punishable under Section 332 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: The two accused persons were engaged to take video photos to cover a marriage which was to take place at Koyikkal Palace at Nedumangad on 21-11-1996 at about 11 a.m. P.W.1 who is a police constable attached to A.R. Camp at Thiruvananthapuram was attending on security duty at the said palace, informed the accused persons that they will have to obtain passes before entering the pathway leading to the hall and taking video photos. Thereupon the accused persons criminally intimidated P.W.1, A1 caught hold of the neck of P.W.1 and pushed P.W.1 to the ground. A2 hit P.W.1 on the lower belly as a result of which P.W.1 sustained pain. A1 took a CCrl.R.P. No. 1701 of 2008 -:2:- stone and hit on the left cheek and rear and right side of his face and tore the uniform worn by P.W.1. The accused have thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 332 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 3. On the 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 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 him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 18-09-1999 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Section 332 I.P.C. read with Sec. 34 and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Addl. Sessions Court , Fast Track (Adhoc) II, Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated CCrl.R.P. No. 1701 of 2008 -:3:- 30-11-2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. From out of fine amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be CCrl.R.P. No. 1701 of 2008 -:4:- paid to P.W.1 the injured by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount 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. Sd/- V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ ani.