IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 218 of 2004(B) ------------------------------ CRL.A.NO. 430/02 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM C.C.NO. 421/98, OF THE K.F.M.C.-III, KOTTAYAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- T.M. SELVENDRAN ALIAS SELVAN, S/O. T.T. MONI, THEKKANATH HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR KARA, AIMANAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI. C.M. KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3.4.2009, THE COURT ON 08/04/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 O R D E R This Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.421 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court-III, Kottayam. C.C.421 of 1998 is a case charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kottayam against the accused under Sections 447, 324 and 326 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. On 15.11.1998 at about 10.15 a.m., while PW1 was digging his property on the northern side of his house for cultivation, the accused came there and obstructed him saying that it was the pathway for him. When PW1 continued his work, the accused attacked him by using MO1, handle of a spade. When PW2, the wife of PW1, intervened, the accused assaulted her also by MO1. 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004 2 were marked. MOs. 1 and 2 were identified. No evidence was adduced from the side of the defence. 4. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence, found the accused guilty under Section 324 I.P.C. only and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for one month. 5. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A.No.430 of 2002 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, which was allowed in part. The conviction of the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. was confirmed, but the sentence was converted into a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. Against that judgment the accused filed this revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not questioning the conviction under Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004 3 Section 324 I.P.C. and that the only prayer is to reduce the fine, as the accused has no ability to pay Rs.5,000/- 8. The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. He swears that on 15.4.1998 at about 10 a.m., while he was carrying on agricultural operations in his property behind the house, the accused came there and there was an altercation between them with regard to the right of the pathway and the accused beat him with the handle of a spade on his left elbow and forehead. When PW2, the wife of PW1, intervened, the accused assaulted her also. PW2 also gives more or less the same version regarding the occurrence. PW4 is an independent eye witness, who also supports the prosecution case. Ext.P3 is the wound certificate showing that PW1 sustained only minor injuries in the occurrence. Since the testimony of PWs. 1, 2 and 4 is reliable and corroborating each other on material particulars and duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the view that the Magistrate Court and the Appellate Court are fully justified in convicting the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004 4 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused and PW1 are neighbours and close relatives and that the accused has no ability to pay the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- Therefore the fine may be reduced. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the fine amount as Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month. 11. This Revision Petition is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in C.C. 421 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court-III, Kottayam under Section 324 I.P.C. is confirmed. But the sentence is modified and the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month. The learned Magistrate is directed to execute the modified sentence. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) tm Judge Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004 5