IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2635 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.793/2007 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.2010/2003 of J.F.C.M- , KOTHAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT -------------------------------------- CHINNAMMA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.CHACKO, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE, AAYAMKARA KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2635 of 2008 =================== Dated: 6.08.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, a 37 year old lady, who was the accused in C.C. No.2010 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Kothamangalam for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 294(b) IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her by the courts below for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On account of the enmity arising out of a boundary dispute between the de facto complainant (PW3) and the accused, on 11.06.03 at about 7.15 p.m at a place near the water tank situated by the side of the road leading Chathamattom, accused abused the PW3 in a filthy language and also struck her on the forehead with MO1 axe and voluntarily caused hurt to PW3. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Section 294(b) and 324 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.2635/2008 :2:- 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against her by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the 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 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and an axe 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 her in the evidence for the prosecution. She denied those circumstances and maintained her innocence. She did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 17.11.07 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC but convicted her of the offences punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which she was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as Crl.R.P.No.2635/2008 :3:- Crl.Appeal No.793 of 2007, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 9.07.2008 confirmed the conviction entered but reduced the rigorous imprisonment to one month. Sentence of fine imposed by the trial court was not interfered with. Hence, this Revision. 6. 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 the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed Crl.R.P.No.2635/2008 :4:- hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside under Section 324 IPC and she is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The revision petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within one month from today. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.4500/- shall be paid to PW3 as compensation. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj