IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2054 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.253/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (SPL.CAURT), KOTTAYAM CC.264/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONERAPPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE, S/O.CHERIAN, EZHUVAMTHANATHU HOUSE, EZHUVAMTHANOM BHAGOM, PAIPPADU KARA, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.2054 of 2003 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by J.F.C.M., Chenganacherry for offences punishable under Secs.324 and 447 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay Rs.2,500/- as fine and in default to undergo S.I. for six months for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.447 IPC and to undergo S.I. for 21 days. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and his appeal was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner would submit that there were disputes between the complainant and her husband on the one side and revision petitioner and his family members on the other side with regard to the cutting of a road and there was another case pertaining to the cutting of that road which is now stated to Crl.R.P. No.2054 of 2003 -: 2 :- be pending before the court. The learned counsel would submit that the motive alleged by injured (PW2) cannot found to be true. The learned counsel further submits that the case of the prosecution that the incident took place inside the house of PW2 and that she and her husband and others were beaten by four accused persons including the revision petitioner was not accepted by the two courts below. So the evidence given by PW2 can be appreciated only in that background. 3. On going through the judgment of the courts below and from the evidence given by PW2, it could be seen that she was attacked by A1 with an iron rod. PW7 could notice that she had only pain on the lumbar region. The learned counsel submits that had she been beaten with MO1 iron rod, there would have been serious injury on her lumbar region and back of her body. But no such injury was found on her body. Hence, the learned counsel submits that this fact also may be borne in mind by the court. 4. It is a case where the courts below concurrently Crl.R.P. No.2054 of 2003 -: 3 :- found that A1 had trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant and PW2 was beaten by A1 with a weapon like iron rod. Her evidence was corroborated by her husband and other witnesses. Therefore, the concurrent finding entered by the two courts below that the accused/revision petitioner committed the offences punishable under Secs.447 and 324 cannot be faulted with. The conviction is thus confirmed. 5. The learned counsel submits that since the case arose because of the dispute regarding cutting of a road and as there are cases pending between the parties and as no serious injury was found on the body of PW2, maximum leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence. The complainant and the accused are neighbours. There was only a complaint of pain. Taking note of the fact that parties are neighbours, I think it is just and proper that substantive sentence is modified. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below :- The conviction of the revision petitioner for the Crl.R.P. No.2054 of 2003 -: 4 :- offences punishable under Secs.447 and 324 IPC is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to PW2 for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC. In default, the revision petitioner is to undergo S.I. for three months. For the offence punishable under Sec.447 IPC, the sentence of fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the courts below is confirmed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.447 and Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC have already been deposited. If so, the revision petitioner will deposit only the balance amount. The revision petitioner will appear before the court below on 23.9.2011 to receive the sentence. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt