IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 45 of 2004(A) ----------------------------- CRA.511/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.200/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED. ------------------------------------ 1. RAGHU S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, VELLATHERI HOUSE, KOLAZHY UMA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SURESH, S/O.NARAYANAN, AYASHI HOUSE, MINALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANJERI HOUSE, MINALOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.TONY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. NO. 45/2004 : 2 : ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO. 158/2004 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 45/2004 DISMISSED 05.06.2008 sd/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 45 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioners, who were accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 200 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- The wife of the 1st accused while washing cloths allowed the dirty water to flow into the property of PWs 1 and 2, who are brothers. Annoyed by the said conduct of A1's wife, PWs 1 and 2 lodged a complaint before the police. In the evening of 09.11.1999, A1 went to the house of PW1 for compromise. But, PW1 was not inclined to settle the matter. Thereupon, A1 took out a cudgel and hit on the head of PW1. A2 beat the mother CRL.R.P. NO. 45/2004 : 2: (CW2) of PW1 with a bamboo stick. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 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 against him 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 11.11.2002 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452 IPC. For the conviction under Section 323 IPC, A1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and for the conviction under Section 324 IPC, A2 and A3 were each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default sentence. For the conviction under Section 452 IPC, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were each sentenced to simple imprisonment CRL.R.P. NO. 45/2004 : 3: for one year. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court,Thrissur as Crl. Appeal No. 511 of 2002, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 17.12.2003 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the 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. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve 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. 45/2004 : 4: hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners under Section 452 IPC is set aside and instead each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 and a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to CW2, the mother of PW1 by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioners under Sections 323 and 324 IPC is not interfered with. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 45/2004 : 5: