IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 466 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.458/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.900/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------- `PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.VISWANATHAN, RAHULNIVAS, SISILIPURAM, KATTACHALKUZHY VENGANOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.466 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 13.02.2009 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.900 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M- III, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 447,323,324 and 325 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 19.11.1995 at 6 p.m. in front of the house of PW4, the accused criminally trespassed into his property and kicked PW4 who fell on the ground. The accused kicked PW4 again on his back ,as a result of which his right 7th rib got fractured. Thereafter, the accused hit PW4 on her right cheek with the handle of a penknife causing pain and injury. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, Crl.R.P.No.466/09 -:2:- 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 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 30.10.1999 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447,323,324 & 325 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 325 IPC and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and simple imprisonment for three months under Sections 324 and 447 IPC respectively and on default of payment of fine the accused was directed to undergo further imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence was imposed Crl.R.P.No.466/09 -:3:- under Section 323 IPC . On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.06.08 confirmed 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 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction Crl.R.P.No.466/09 -:4:- under Section 447 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. For his conviction under Section 324 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For his conviction under Section 325 IPC he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) by way of compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to PW4, the injured. Fine as well as compensation amount shall be deposited before the trial court within 45 days from today. On default to pay the compensation amount the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.466/09 -:5:-