IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1305 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- CRA.58/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.208/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................................. REVN. PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------- MADHU, S/O PODIYAN, KANNAMPARAPADINJARETHIL HOUSE, VAYATTUPPUZHA, CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT. ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No. 1305 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 31st Day of May, 2011 ORDER This Crl.R.P is directed at the instance of the Ist accused in C.C.No.208 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ranny, challenging his conviction and sentence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that on 2.3.2004 at about 7.30. a.m. at Vayyattupuzha in Chittar, Seethathodu village , in furtherance of the common intention of the accused, Ist accused pelted stones at CW1 causing injury on her forehead and tenderness to the thighs and 2nd accused pelted stones at CW2 causing tenderness and swelling on the left knee and both elbows. Thus according to the prosecution, the accused have committed the offence punishable under section 324 read with section 34 IPC. On the basis of the above allegation, crime No.19/2004 was registered in the Chittar Police Station for the said offence. After investigation, the police had preferred report on the basis of which cognizance was taken and C.C.No.208/2004 CRL.R.P 1305/11 -:2:- was instituted in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Ranny. When the accused appeared, a formal charge was framed under section 324 read with Section 34 IPC which was read over and explained to them and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty which resulted in the further trial during which PWs 1 to 6 were examined from the side of the prosecution and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No evidence either oral documentary was adduced from the side of the defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate found that the accused are guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly, they were convicted under section 324 read Section 34 of IPC and on such conviction each of the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under section 324 IPC. 3. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal and by judgment dated 28.4.2011 in Crl.A.No.58/2009, the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Pathanamthitta allowed the appeal with respect to the 2nd accused, whereas CRL.R.P 1305/11 -:3:- the appeal as far as the Ist accused concerned was disposed of confirming the conviction recorded by the trial court, but modifying and reducing the same into rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the above order of conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court as well as the trial court, the Ist accused preferred this Crl.R.P. 4. I have heard Sri Sri V.Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court. 5. Though several contentions are advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel confined his arguments with respect to the sentence only. The learned counsel submitted that the parties are adjacent neighbors and considering the fact that the 2nd accused has already been acquitted, a lenient view may be taken with respect to the sentence and the sentence may be confined to fine only. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the trial court has found CRL.R.P 1305/11 -:4:- guilty of both the accused, the appellate court found that the Ist accused alone is guilty and though the sentence is reduced into three months rigorous imprisonment, the fact remaining is that as per the findings of the appellate court, PW1 sustained injury as noted in Ext.P2 wound certificate. Thus according to the learned Public Prosecutor, if this court interferes with the order of sentence of imprisonment, adequate provisions may be made to compensate the injured. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. As the learned counsel confined his submission with respect to the sentence only, I am of the view that I need not go into the other details and merits of the case. From the judgment of the courts below, it can be seen that in the alleged incident, PW1 sustained injuries as evidenced by Ext.P2 wound certificate . The injuries are lacerated wound 5 x 1 c.m. over the forehead of hair line and contusions on both thighs. The said injuries were CRL.R.P 1305/11 -:5:- caused due to pelting of stone. PW1 is a lady who sustained injury on her forehead and thighs. 8. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that , though altogether there were two accused, and both of therm were found guilty and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment by the trial court, the appellate court has found that the 2nd accused is not guilty and she is acquitted. Still then , even though the appellate court has found that the Ist accused is guilty, the sentence is reduced into three months rigorous imprisonment. It is an admitted case that both the prosecution party as well as the accused are close neighbours and the 2nd accused is also a lady, who is the wife of the Ist accused, the revision petitioner herein. The injured in this case, namely, PW1 is also a lady. The incident had taken place on 2.3.2004 and thereafter several years are over. According to me, under the above particular facts and circumstances involved in the case, sending of the revision petitioner/Ist accused to jail is likely to accelerate animosity between the two neighbours, whereas if the sentence is confined CRL.R.P 1305/11 -:6:- to fine only, there is likelihood of establishing cordial relationship between the parties but, at the same time adequate provision has to be made to compensate PW1 who sustained injuries in the incident. Under the above mitigating circumstance, I am of he view that while confirming the conviction of the revision under section 324 IPC, the substantial sentence imposed by the trial court and modified and reduced by the appellate court can be set aside and the sentence can be confined to fine only, and while fixing the fine amount, the same can be decided considering the fact that PW1 sustained the said injuries. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 324 IPC as recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court. But the sentence of imprisonment modified and reduced by the appellate court is set aside and the sentence is confined to fine only. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rs.Ten thousand only) within one month from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a CRL.R.P 1305/11 -:7:- period of 6 months. On realisation of the fine, the entire amount shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Subject to the above modification with respect to the sentence and confirming the conviction, this Crl.R.P is disposed of. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-