IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 890 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRL.A.661/2006 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR (FAST TRACK COURT NO.II ADHOC) S.C. NO. 589/2003 OF I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. KANNAN S/O. ANCHERIVEETTIL RAGHAVAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KARALAM - PALLAM DESOM. 2. MANI @ MANIKANDAN, S/O. PAYIVEETTIL RAMU, KARALAM VILLAGE, ELAMPUZHA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 890 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.589/2003 on file of the Court of the I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 308 read with section 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 read with section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows: On 7-3-2003 at 10.20 p.m. the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cause death of PW1 and voluntarily cause hurt to him trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW1 at Peringottukara armed with iron rods and assaulted PW1 who sustained lacerated injuries on his head, left and right forearm. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in Crl.R.P. 890/09 -2- support of its case. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 and MOs. 1 and 1(a) were marked. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 27-9-2005 convicted the revision petitioners for offences under sections 447 and 324 read with section 34 IPC and acquitted them under section 308 IPC. For conviction under section 324 read with section 34 IPC, each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and for conviction under section 447 read with section 34 IPC, each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Thrissur (Fast Track Court No.II-Adhoc), the lower appellate Crl.R.P. 890/09 -3- court as per judgment dated 9-1-2009, confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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 petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve 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 sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead they are each sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay compensation of Crl.R.P. 890/09 -4- Rs.12,000/- each to PW1 the injured and on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under section 324 read with section 34 IPC and for the conviction under section 447 read with section 34 IPC, each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. The petitioners shall deposit the compensation as well as the fine amounts within two months from today. 8. In the result, this revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.