IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1239 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.24/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.806/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ SAMEER, S/O. ABDUL JABBAR, VALIKONATHUVEED, (PULLAMPARA PANCHAYAT VI, WARD NO.443, KOONANVENGA), MANIKKAL MURI, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P.NO. 1239 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 09-04-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.806 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Nedumangad, for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 14-07-2000 at about 3.30 p.m. at Panavur inside the shed attached to the building bearing No. XI/371 where P.W.1 was running a tea shop, the accused wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and slapped him twice on his right cheek and fisted him thrice on his belly. The reason for the accused assaulting P.W.1 was on account of the intervention by P.W.1 by saying that he would switch off the T.V. in case the accused continued to talk loudly while watching the T.V. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the Crl.R.P. No. 1239 of 2008 -:2:- prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 28-12-2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 days under Section 341 I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 323 I.P.C. 6. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court , Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated. 29-01-2008 confirmed the conviction entered Crl.R.P. No. 1239 of 2008 -:3:- and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 7. 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 hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Sec. 323 I.P.C. is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to P.W.1 under Section 375 (3) Cr.P.C. The sentence imposed under Sec. 341 I.P.C. is not interfered with. The fine as well as compensation shall be deposited Crl.R.P. No. 1239 of 2008 -:4:- before the trial court within 45 days from today failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and one month under Sec. 341 I.P.C. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ ani.