IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1020 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.582/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.502/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BABU, S/O.GOPI, AGED 38 YEARS, PARAKULAM HOUSE, ANJILIPADIBHAGAM, THRICKODITHANAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1020 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28 th day of March, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No.502 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery for offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 447 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.2002 at 2.30 p.m, the accused committed house trespass into the house of PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to her by hitting her with an iron plate. 3. On the side of the prosecution six witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW6 and five documents were got marked as Exts.P1 to P5. 4. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. Crl.R.P.No.1020 of 2008 2 5. The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 31.08.06, found the accused guilty of the offences. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 447 IPC with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Half of the fine amount was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction entered and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kottayam as Crl.A.No.582/2006. The learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 12.4.07 dismissed the appeal by confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence this revision. 7. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner on various grounds, in as much as the conviction has been entered by the courts below after a careful Crl.R.P.No.1020 of 2008 3 evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction entered against the revision petitioner. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 8. 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 the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for his conviction. I am of the view that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and an appropriate fine coupled with a direction for compensation shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead, he is directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court for the conviction under Sections 323 IPC and 447 IPC and for the conviction under Section 323 Cr.P.C, the revision petitioner shall also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the conviction under Section 447 IPC, the revision petitioner shall also pay a sum of Crl.R.P.No.1020 of 2008 4 Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as fine and on default to pay the fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. If the compensation is not deposited within one month from today, the revision petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month by way of default sentence. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj