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. 357 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA NO.222/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT(FAST TRACK -IV) TRIVANDRUM C.C.NO.419/2000 OF J.F.C.M-II, NEDUMANGAD REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SYAMPRAKASH @ JOSE, S/O.BABU, SYAM NIVAS, VATHUKAL, ARUVIKKARA MURI, IRUMPA, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN 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.357 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.419 of 200 of J.F.C.M -2 for offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 18.10.99 at 2.10 p.m., the accused, with the intention of causing hurt to PW1(Bindu) and outraging her modesty, trespassed into the kitchen of her house bearing building No.NMC 15/53 at Vattavila within the limits of Nedumangad Municipality and caught hold of her. When PW1 ran outside, the accused chased her and pulled her down at the courtyard on the north side of the house and thereafter he lifted her nighty and touched her private parts. In the course of the occurrence, she sustained injuries on her elbow and knee and also sustained terrible mental agony. Crl.R.P.No.357/09 -:2:- 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. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to 5. 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 1.03.2006. found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 451 IPC and on default to pay the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 354 IPC and on default to pay the fine to Crl.R.P.No.357/09 -:3:- suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Trivandrm, as Crl.Appeal No.222/2006, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 28.08.09 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 Crl.R.P.No.357/09 -:4:- hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside. For his conviction under Section 354 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction under Section 354 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to PW1 on default to pay the compensation, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The fine as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj