IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 833 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.896/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR CC.102/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- PETER, S/O.JOHN, MOOLAYIL POLAKULATH HOUSE, BALAN MENON COLONY, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE-REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE, IN CRIME NO.120/98 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 833 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 11th day of March, 2010 ORDER In this revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C. No. 102 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Aluva , for an offence punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On account of the enmity towards his sister, P.W.1, (Smitha) arising out of property dispute, on 28-6-1998 at about 4.15 p.m. from the compound of their house the accused hit P.W.1 Smitha on the head with MO1 spade and also hit on her left shoulder with MO2 spade handle . The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 326 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed Crl.R.P. No. 833 of 2010 -:2:- 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 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and 2 material objects as Mos. 1 and 2. He examined himself as DW1 and a neighbour as DW2. 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 examined two witnesses as Dws 1 and 2. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 10-8-2004 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal 896 of 2004, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Paravur as per Judgment dated 20- 10-2009 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence by reducing the same to rigorous imprisonment for three months. 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 Crl.R.P. No. 833 of 2010 -:3:- 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 imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to his sister P.W.1, the injured. The petitioner is given two months' time to deposit the compensation amount before the trial Court failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three 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. Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani Crl.R.P. No. 833 of 2010 -:4:- ani.