IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3028 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.721/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT -III, TRIVANDRUM CC.518/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- STEEPHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ANNA BHAVAN, PUNNAKODE, KAKKANAM, MARAYAMUTTOM, PERUMKADAVILA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ...................................... Crl.R.P. No. 3028 of 2008 ....................................... Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the 2nd accused and who is also the husband of the 1st accused in C.C. No. 518 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 325 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her and her husband for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: A1 (Rose Mary) used to call abuses towards the daughter of the de facto complainant (Lilly). The de facto complainant questioned the above conduct of A1. On account of the enemity arising out of the same, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained PW1, Lilly in the rubber field near the RC church, Mannoor at Kakkanam on 15.07.1999 at about 6 p.m while PW1 was cutting grass from her CRL.R.P. NO. 3028/2008 :2: property. A1 caught hold of the left hand of PW1 and bit on her left index finger. A1 also fisted on the lower lip of PW1 causing dislocation of front teeth. A2, the revision petitioner threw stone at PW1 above her right heel causing injuries. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 30.09.2005 found the revision petitioner as well as his wife guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and CRL.R.P. NO. 3028/2008 :3: 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. For the conviction under Section 341 IPC, they were each sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was imposed under Section 323 IPC. The accused were further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- each to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 6. Even though the revision petitioner and his wife filed separate appeals as Crl. Appeal Nos. 721 and 710 of 2005 respectively before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per common judgment dated 06.05.2008 dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence this revision. 7. 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 3028/2008 :4: in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. 8. 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 341 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction under Section 323 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. For his conviction under Section 324 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. From out of the fine amount, a CRL.R.P. NO. 3028/2008 :5: sum of Rs.4000/- shall be paid to PW1 by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv