IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 97 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRA.274/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.455/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- BIJU, S/O.KESAVAN, KODIVACH VILA VEEDU, ATTAKULAM, CHITTATINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. C.S. HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 97 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.455 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC., challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 23.06.1995, at about 9 a.m., due to the previous enemity towards PW1 and in furtherance of the common intention to voluntarily cause injuries to PWs 1 to 4, the two accused persons wrongfully restrained PW1 and struck her and PWs 2 to 4 with their hands and an iron pipe, a dangerous weapon, and the accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC. Crl.R.P. No. 97/2010 -:2:- 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him 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 P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D4 were got marked. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so except marking Exts.D1 to D4. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 09.06.2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC. On appeal preferred by the Crl.R.P. No. 97/2010 -:3:- revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.01.2008 confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 323 IPC to simple imprisonment for one month and under Section 324 IPC to simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, 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 petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves 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. 97/2010 -:4:- hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 IPC and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 324 IPC. From out of the fine as and when realised a sum of Rs.2000/- shall be paid to PW1 and Rs.1000/- each shall be paid to PWs 2 to 4 by way of compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 97/2010 -:5:-