IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2737 of 2008 ------------------------------ CRA.312/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM CC.112/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, S/O.SELVARAJ, SREENAGAR, NCC ROAD, CHETTITILAKONAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUNILKUMAR, S/O.SELVARAJ, SREENAGAR, NCC ROAD, CHETTITILAKONAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SIVAKUMAR, S/O.SELVARAJ, SREENAGAR, NCC ROAD, CHETTITILAKONAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No.2737 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The petitioners who were accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 in C.C.No.112 of 2001, on the file of the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: Due to previous enmity, accused Nos. 1 to 3 approached PW1 on 2.5.2000 at about 7.00 p.m., on the Peroorkada- Kudappanakkunnu road at Chettivilakam and A1 beat him with a cudgel on the back of his head causing an injury, A2 cut him with a chopper twice causing injuries on his right wrist and left forehand and A3 beat him on his left and right knee with an iron road. The accused thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Crl.R.P. No.2737/2008 -: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 five witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked five documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 16.3.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as 312 of 2006, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.6.2008, Crl.R.P. No.2737/2008 -:3:- confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though 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 hereinafter. For the conviction entered under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till raising of court and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Crl.R.P. No.2737/2008 -:4:- Thousand only) as compensation to PW1, injured under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioners are given one month's time from today to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the compensation amount within one months as aforesaid, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. bkn