IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 952 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.159/2008 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC) - II, MANJERI CC.1065/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------ MOHAMMED FAVAZ, S/O.HAMZA HAJI, PALAKKATHODI HOUSE, CHEMBRASSERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. BABU S. NAIR MR. K.RAKESH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:- ------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 952 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No.1065 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Perintalmanna, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 21.10.2005, at about 1 p.m., from the south western corner of Chembrasseri East Estate School ground at Chembrasseri East in Chembrasseri Amsom, the accused with the intention of outraging the modesty of PW1 Sainabha caught hold of her and tore MO1 maxi worn by her. While she resisted, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with his hands. When PW1 disclosed the above incident to others, then on account of the enemity due to the same, on 22.10.2005, at about 5.30 p.m., Crl.R.P. No. 952/2010 -:2:- from the mud road near the compound of one Anappattath Safiya, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating her with his hand and also criminally intimidated her. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 354 and 506(i) 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 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7 and a maxi as MO1. 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 23.04.2008 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offenecs Crl.R.P. No. 952/2010 -:3:- punishable under Sections 506(i) IPC, but convicted him of the other two offences. For the conviction under Sections 323 and 354 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc- II), Manjeri as per judgment dated 18.02.2010 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though 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. Crl.R.P. No. 952/2010 -:4:- 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 323 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. For his conviction under Section 354 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) of which Rs.7000/- shall be paid to PW1, the victim and Rs.3000/- shall be paid to the State. The petitioner is given 45 days' from today to deposit the fine as well as the compensation amount. In the event of failure to deposit the compensation amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for Crl.R.P. No. 952/2010 -:5:- three months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv