IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2578 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.47/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.821/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED ----------------------------- REGUNATHAN NAIR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, REGHU MANDIRAM, CHILAMB, PERUMKUZHY DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 2578 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 4-08-2008 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.821 of 2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 30-07-1999 at about 8.45 a.m. the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention criminally trespassed upon the property owned by the husband of P.W.1 and caused hurt to P.W.1 with their hands and with a piece of tapioca stem and they have therefore, committed the above offences. 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 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 Crl.R.P. No. 2578 of 2008 -:2:- 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 6th January 2003 acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 of all the offences but convicted the revision petitioner/first accused of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 447 and 323 I.P.C. respectively and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 324 I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 47 of 2003 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram the lower appellate court as per judgment dated, 29-05-2008 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 but confirmed his conviction under Sec. 323 and altered the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 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 Crl.R.P. No. 2578 of 2008 -:3:- 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 for his conviction under Sec. 323 I.P.C. is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. An amount of Rs. 750/- shall be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within three weeks from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 4th day of August 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. Crl.R.P. No. 2578 of 2008 -:4:- ani.