IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1128 of 2002() --------------------------------------------- CRA.63/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.41/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI . .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ABDUL BASHEER, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KANNATHODY PAYYOLI PARAMBATH, CHEEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.SMITHA BABU SMT.ANJU DIVAKAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1128 of 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. ORDER This revision petition is filed by the accused who was convicted concurrently by the courts below for the offence punishable u/s 452 and 324 IPC. Four accused were charge sheeted by the police alleging commission of offences punishable u/s 452 and 324 r/w 34 IPC. A2 was absconding and so the case against him was split up. A1 and A3 faced trial and the learned Magistrate found both accused guilty and convicted them. They preferred appeal. The conviction and sentence passed against the second appellant (original 3rd accused) were set aside by the learned Session Judge but confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against 1st accused who is the revision petitioner. 2. The incident took place on 08/04/1992 at about 02:30 a.m. It was alleged that the revision petitioner and the other two persons trespassed into the verandah of the Crl.R.P. No. 1128 of 2002 -: 2 :- house of PW2 and PW3 and the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 with a sickle. He was taken to District Hospital, Manjeri. Ext. P1, the first information statement was recorded based on which the FIR was registered. The evidence given by PW2 and PW3 was that while he (PW3) and his wife (PW2) were sleeping in their house, at about 02:30 a.m. on 08/04/1992, somebody came and knocked the door and said that the brother-in-law of PW2 is ill to which PW2 replied that his brother-in-law is in gulf. It was stated that, he opened the door and went to the verandah flashing a torch and at that time the petitioner herein attacked him with a sickle causing injury to him. PW5, the doctor found corresponding injury on the body of PW2. The evidence given by PW2 and PW3 who alone could be the natural witnesses to speak about the incident narrated correctly. It was accepted by the two courts below after thoroughly scrutinizing their evidence. The contention that their evidence has to be brushed aside as interested witnesses Crl.R.P. No. 1128 of 2002 -: 3 :- was rightly rejected by the courts below. As the incident took place at odd hours in the verandah of the house of PW2, they alone could be the natural witnesses. As such the courts below were perfectly justified in placing reliance on the evidence given by PW2 and PW3 which was corroborated by the wound certificate proved by PW5. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that subsequently the second accused who was absconding appeared before the court and faced the trial but at that time all the witness turned hostile. That also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Since the court is concerned with the evidence on record and not with respect to the evidence adduced in some another case, I find no reason to upset the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. The conviction is only to be confirmed. I do so. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident took place on 08/04/1992 i.e. 19 years back Crl.R.P. No. 1128 of 2002 -: 4 :- and so the jail sentence may be avoided. That there was delay in the disposal of the case cannot be taken as a bonus to get rid of the appropriate sentence which has to be awarded for the offence committed. The sentence must commensurate with the gravity of offence committed. The petitioner was sentenced by the courts below to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each for offence punishable u/s 452 and 324 IPC. Considering all the aspects, I find that substantive sentence can be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year but directing him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In the result; this criminal revision petition is disposed as stated below:- The conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 452 and 324 IPC is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Crl.R.P. No. 1128 of 2002 -: 5 :- Rs.5000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. If the fine amount is paid, Rs.5000/- shall be paid to PW2 as compensation. The learned Magistrate will execute the sentence without delay. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd