IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1569 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.407/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.10/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPI, ASSARIYATHU VEEDU, ARUVAPPULAM, KOKKATHODU, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 2. ANANDAN, ASSARIYATHU VEEDU, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No.1569 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008. 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.10 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 06.12.2004, at about 7.30 p.m, in furtherance of their common intention, both the accused persons who are brothers, wrongfully restrained PW1 out of previous enemity by A1 catching hold of his shirt and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by A2 beating him on his left leg with a stick causing injury and A1 inflicted injury with a knife on the left chest of PW1. The occurrence was as a result of the dispute regarding the pathway between the accused and PW1. 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 support of its case. CRL.R.P. No. 1569/2008 -:2:- The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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 their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 12.10.2006 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the fine of Rs.2000/- and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 324 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC. From out of the fine amount, as and when realised it was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to PW1 as compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 31.10.2007 confirmed the CRL.R.P. No. 1569/2008 -:3:- conviction entered but modified the sentence under Section 324 IPC reducing the simple imprisonment to three months. 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 interests 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 each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and CRL.R.P. No. 1569/2008 -:4:- on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 323 IPC and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. Each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Section 341 IPC and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. From out of the fine amount as and when realised, a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid to PW1, the injured by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial court within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv