IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2214 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.10/2005 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.672/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPLLANTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SANKARAN, S/O.CHINNAN, PULLEPARAMBU VEEDU, THENUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHINNAN, PULLEPARAMBU VEEDU, THENUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.CHINNAN, PULLEPARAMBU VEEDU, THENUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. PARU, W/O.SANKARAN, PULLEPARAMBU VEEDU, THENUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.GOVINDANKUTTY SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO.2214 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 4th day of July 2008 ORDER Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.672/2001 on the file of the JFCM II, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 323 and 324 read with section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 324 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 30.5.2001 at 8.30 p.m., all the 4 accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the residential compound of PW1 (Vasu) due to previous enmity. The first accused caught hold of PW1's neck and pushed him and the second accused beat him with a stick. The first accused had also caught hold of PW2(Komalam) by the hair and thereby outraged her modesty. Accused CRRP 2214/2008 2 Nos.3 and 4 also beat PWs.2 and 3 and PWs.1 to 3 thus sustained injuries. 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 8 witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got marked 7 documents as Exts.P1 to P7 and one stick as M.O.1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, accused were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing 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 13/12/2004, found the revision petitioners CRRP 2214/2008 3 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 447 IPC and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 447 IPC and 6 months under Sections 323 and 324 IPC each. They were acquitted for the rest of the offences. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl.Appeal No.10/2005 on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 31.5.2008, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month for each of the three offences. 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 CRRP 2214/2008 4 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 interest of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead, for their conviction under Section 447 IPC, each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For the conviction under Section 323 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For their conviction under Section 324 IPC, CRRP 2214/2008 5 each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. From out of the total fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to PW1 and a sum of Rs.500/- each shall be paid to PWs.2 and 3. The petitioners shall deposit the fine amount 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 4th day of July, 2008 V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/