IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 670 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.725/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.327/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------------- GEORGE , S/O.ULAHANNAN, MANNANCHERI HOUSE, PALAKARA, KADUTHURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL SRI.AJEY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT. -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 670 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 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.327/2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows:- Due to previous enmity towards PW1, on 23-4-2000 at 6.30 a.m. accused struck PW1 with a granite stone on the nose at the Kaduthuruthy-Kuruvilangad public road at Palakara, near the house of the accused and on account of the blow, PW1 sustained fracture of his nasal bone. 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. On the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined as Pws.1 to 8 and five documents Crl.R.P. 670/2009 -2- marked as Exts.P1 to P5 and stone was marked 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 28-9-2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 326 IPC and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. If fine amount is realized, an amount of Rs.3,500/- directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A.No.725/2007 before the Court of Sessions, Kottayam Division, the Addl. Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 18-9-2008 altered the conviction to one punishable under section 325 IPC and the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to suffer simple Crl.R.P. 670/2009 -3- imprisonment for two months. The direction for compensation was maintained by the lower appellate court. Hence, this revision. 6. This Court called for a report of the District Probation Officer, Kottayam with regard to the antecedents of the revision petitioner. He is a first offender and the offence is committed without any premeditation. He is living a peaceful life. The District Probation Officer in his report dated 27-3-2009 has recommended probation to the petitioner. I am of the view that the revision petitioner should be released on probation for a period of two years on his executing a bond to that effect before the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioner shall report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom on 15-4-2009 for executing the bond under Section 4 of the Probation Offenders Act, 1958. 7. In the result, conviction is confirmed and the petitioner is directed to be released on probation as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.