IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 513 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.772/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE CC.225/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------- VEDAS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAJAGOPALAN, APPACHI PARAMBATH HOUSE, KATCHERI AMSOM DESOM KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. M.R. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 513 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.225 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 09.06.2006, at about 7 p.m., from the vicinity of a stationery shop by name Fouz stores near the English Church in Kacheri Amsom and Desom of Kozhikode Taluk, when PW1, a woman police Constable not in her uniform, came for purchasing articles from the said shop, the revision petitioner made gestures and uttered words intending to outrage the modesty of PW1. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. Crl.R.P. No. 513/2010 -:2:- 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 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 2 documents as Exts. P1 and P2. 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 16.08.2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 18 days. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 772 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode the learned Additional Sessions Judge Crl.R.P. No. 513/2010 -:3:- as per judgment dated 11.11.2009 has 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 sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 509 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the Crl.R.P. No. 513/2010 -:4:- rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be paid within two months failing which the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv