IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 641 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.44/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.528/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. ANIL, S/O. ONAKKAN, KOODALI. 2. ASHOKAN, S/O. ONAKKAN, KOODALI. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE - S.H.O. MATTANNUR, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.641 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.No.528 of 1994 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Mattannur, challenge the the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them by the lower appellate court (Addl.Sessions Court) in Crl.A.No.44 of 1996, setting aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC but confirming the conviction under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and partly confirming the direction of the trial court to release the petitioners on probation under Section 4(1) (3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and also directing each of them to pay compensation of Rs.500/- to PW1 under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed the conviction recorded by the lower appellate court against the revision petitioners, in as much as the said conviction has been entered by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with Crl.R.P.No.641 of 2008 2 the said conviction entered against the revision petitioners. The conviction, under Section 323 IPC, is accordingly confirmed. 3. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the order for probation and the compensation directed to be paid under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Having regard to the fact that the occurrence took place as early as on 4.8.94 and the compensation ordered way back in 1996 is a meagre amount of Rs.500/-, I see no justification to sustain the order for probation. No doubt, the order for probation does not cause any stigma on the revision petitioners in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. But the petitioners have been directed to appear before the Probationary Officer Thalassery on the first working day of every month for a period of two years. There is no direction to execute a bond incorporating the undertaking to be made by the revision petitioners and the duration of the period for the bond, except that they will be under the supervision of the Probationary Officer, Thalassery for two years. It is stated that the revision petitioners are employed in Mumbai and they find it difficult to go to Kerala every month to comply with the Crl.R.P.No.641 of 2008 3 condition imposed by the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court. Accordingly, for their conviction under Section 323 IPC each of the revision petitioners are each sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) to PW1- injured. The petitioners are given one month's time from today to deposit the compensation amount. They shall report before the trial court on 8.4.2008 to receive the imprisonment till the rising of the court. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge