IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 686 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.246/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KASARAGOD CC.246/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- K.M.CHACKO @ SAJI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, KARIMBIL HOUSE, KOLIYAR, THAYANNUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. MR. JIMMY GEORGE MR. M.JOSE ANTONY MR. C.K.JAYAKUMAR MS. E.SHEENA RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/STATE:- ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 686 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No. 246 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: At about 11 a.m., on 21.01.2001, out of previous enemity towards PW1, the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 at Edathode-Mukkuzhi Panchayat mud road at Koliyar in Thayyannur village and during the course of the same transaction, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 on his forehead, hand, legs and other parts of the body by using a stone. The accused have thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Crl.R.P. No. 686/2010 -: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 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and a material object as MO1. 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 22.08.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 341 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 246 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Crl.R.P. No. 686/2010 -:3:- (Adhoc-I) as per judgment dated 21.08.2009 confirmed the conviction, but altered the sentence under Section 324 IPC to simple imprisonment for three months instead of six months. The sentence imposed by the trial court for the offence under Section 341 IPC was not interfered with. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though 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 Crl.R.P. No. 686/2010 -:4:- hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 341 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction under Section 324 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to PW1, the injured. On default to pay the compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as well as the compensation amount 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 2nd day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 686/2010 -:5:-