IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2663 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA 207 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM C.C.NO.842 OF 1997 ON THE FILES OF THE J.F.C.M-1, ATTINGAL REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ SHARAFUDEEN @ UNNI, S/O.ABDUL RASAC, KARICHANATHU VEEDU, PAKISTANMUKKU, ANAKUDI MURI, KALLARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2663 of 2008 =================== Dated: 11.08.2008 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.842 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC, 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 10.9.97 at 10 p.m. the accused, out of his previous enmity towards PW1, who is running a pan shop at Pakistanmukku within the limits of Pangode police station, criminally trespassed into the said shop and voluntarily caused injuries to PW1 by cutting on different parts of his body with a chopper. 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 Crl.R.P.No.2663/2008 -:2:- witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and a chopper as MO1. 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 6.05.2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three years under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for two years under Section 452 IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl. Appeal No.207 of 2000, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 7.8.07 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction Crl.R.P.No.2663/2008 -:3:- 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 the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Considering the fact that the petitioner had inflicted as many as 9 incised injuries on different parts of the body of PW1 for allegedly not giving him articles on credit, he should pay at least a sum of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees seventeen thousand only) by way of compensation to PW1 besides undergoing imprisonment till the rising of the court. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 324 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Crl.R.P.No.2663/2008 -:4:- a sum of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. For his conviction under Section 452 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-( Rupees five thousand only), out of which a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1)Cr.P.C. The fine as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within two months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 11 th day of August, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj