IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1817 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRLA.370/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.772/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. RAJU, S/O THOMAS, KARUMPARAYIL VEEDU, PORUVAZHY, EDAKKADU, KOLLAM. 2. MANOJ @ PODIYAN, S/O RAJU, DO DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.R.P. No. 1817 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June 2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C. No.772/2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Sasthamcotta for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: PW1, the de facto complainant is the owner of a granite quarry situated adjacent to the residence of the accused persons. On 20.9.2001, the accused obstructed the blasting of rocks from that quarry. Aggrieved by the obstruction caused by the accused, PW1 had preferred a petition before the local police. Getting irritated by the conduct of PW1, on CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:2:- 20.9.2001 at about 7.15 p.m., the 4 accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1, when he went over to the quarry for discharging excess water. A1 beat PW1 on his forehead with an iron road causing an injury with profuse bleeding and also fracture of skull. A2 and A3 hit him on the back of his chest, shoulder and right forearm with MO2 twig of Anjili tree. The accused persons have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked 9 documents as Exts. P1 to P9 and two material objects as MOs.1 and 2. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:3:- against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 31.5.2007 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine directed them to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 326 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Kollam, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction entered and dismissed the appeal, as per judgment dated 19.2.2008. Hence, this revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:4:- conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on each of the revision petitioners is set aside and for their conviction under Section 326 IPC, each of them is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- each to PW1 by way of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On default to pay the compensation, the defaulting accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. For their conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- failing which the defaulting accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The compensation as well as the fine amount shall be deposited within two months from today, failing which the defaulting accused shall undergo the CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:5:- default sentence, as indicated above. In the result, this revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/