IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3113 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC. NO. 842 OF 1997 OF J.F.CM. VARKALA CRA. 481 OF 2000 OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC-II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVN. PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. SURESH, S/O. THANKAPPAN, THENKKEMURI VEEDU, NEDUMANGAD, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK 2. ANILKUMAR, S/O. THANKAPPAN, THENKKEMURI VEEDU NEDUMANGAD, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK 3. SURESH BABU, S/O. SASANKAN, ARYAB VILAKOM VEEDU, KAYIKKARA, VAKKOM, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.ANIYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P. RVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 4-09-2008 , THE COURT ON 04/09/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 3113 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 4-09-2008 ORDER In this revision filed by the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1,2, and 4 in C.C. No. 842 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Varkala for offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 12-5-1996 at 6 a.m. accused Nos. 1 , 2 and 4 out of their enmity towards P.W.1 wrongfully restrained him at the first bridge, Nedunganda, and A1 pelt a blow to P.W.1 causing paid and contusion. A2 to A3 fisted him on his chest with hare hands. Out of the 4 accused persons the revision petitioner alone fased the trial. A3 was Crl.R.P. 3113 of 2008 -:2:- absconding. 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 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7 . 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused 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. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 14-11-2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 341 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for 1 year under Sec. 324 I.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Crl.R.P. 3113 of 2008 -:3:- Sessions Court, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc - II, Thiruvananthapuram) as per judgment dated 31-12-2007 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months under Sec. 324 I.P.C. 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a Crl.R.P. 3113 of 2008 -:4:- sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for their conduction under Section 324 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/- and on default to pay fine simple imprisonment for two months. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1/injured as compensation under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C. Petitioners shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.R.P. 3113 of 2008 -:5:- V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.