IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2557 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.66/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.341/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- MOHANAN, S/O.SADANANDAN, 44 YEARS KODIYAMKATTU VELI VEEDU, WARD NO.6 MRARIKULAM, VADAKKU PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION CRIME NO.78/2002, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2557 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The revision petitioner, who was the sole accused in C.C. No.341 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the lower appellate court for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On account of the enemity by the accused towards PW1 for asking him not to sell earth from his property, the accused caused grievous hurt to PW1 by hitting him with an iron rod resulting in PW1 sustaining fracture of two fingers of the right hand and injuries on other parts of the body including right thigh. 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 2557/2008 :2: support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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 31.07.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer imprisonment for two years. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 66 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 23.08.2007 confirmed the conviction entered but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of CRL.R.P. NO. 2557/2008 :3: Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 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 hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 326 IPC is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a CRL.R.P. NO. 2557/2008 :4: sum of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only) as compensation to PW1, the injured and on default to pay the compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount before the trial court within two months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv