IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 945 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.61/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.912/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- --------------------- ANTONY @ THANKACHAN, S/O.VARKEYM 36 YEARS, MUKALEPARAMBIL, CHANDANNAKKAMPARA, PAYYANNUR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 945 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 18th day of March, 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.912/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba for offences punishable under section 326 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under section 324 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 31-3-1999 at about 10.30 p.m. the accused and PW1 quaralled with each other and while so, the accused stabbed on the right side of neck of PW1 with a knife and caused grievous hurt and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under section 326 IPC. 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 12 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 12 and got marked Exts. P1to P7 and MO1. Crl.R.P. 945/09 -2- 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 31st December, 2003 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under section 324 IPC, after finding not guilty of the offence under section 326 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and out of the fine amount, Rs.2,500/- was directed to be paid to PW1, injured, as compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thalassery as Crl.A. No. 61/2004, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 13th October, 2008 dismissed the appeal confirming 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 Crl.R.P. 945/09 -3- 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, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under section 324 IPC is set aside and the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to PW1 as compensation. One month's time is given to deposit the compensation before the trial court, failing which the petitioner will suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. Crl.R.P. 945/09 -4- 8. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.