IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 170 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.312/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CC.990/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- LALITHA, D/O. AMMUKUTTY, VALIYAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHI, VENGANOOR DESOM, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE:- --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 170 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 11th 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.90/96 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 114 read with section 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for offences thereunder. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows: On 10-9-1996 at about 8.45 p.m., due to previous enmity, four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt to PWs.1 and 2 committed house trespass and 2nd accused fisted PW1 with torch light on his abdomen and forehead. The 3rd accused beat PW3 and pushed him down and 4th accused fisted PW2 at the left elbow portion and thereby the accused committed the above offences. 3. Learned Magistrate after trial acquitted the 4th accused and convicted accused 1 and 2 for the offences alleged against them and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the Crl.R.P. 170/09 -2- offence under section 452 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 323 read with section 34 IPC. No separate sentence is awarded to the 1st accused under section 114 IPC. The 2nd accused was acquitted for the offence under section 114 IPC. On appeal preferred by accused 1 and 2 as Crl.A.. No.312/200 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) No.II, Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 31st March, 2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the trial court. Hence, this revision. 4. 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. 5. What now survives for consideration is whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is liable to be interfered with or not? Since the revision Crl.R.P. 170/09 -3- petitioner is a woman who was aged 35 years from the date of occurrence, this Court call for a report from the District Probation Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. In the report submitted by the District Probation Officer, having regard to the age, antecedents, family circumstances and scope for correction in her character, he has recommended to release the revision petitioner under sections 4(1) and (3) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the light of the above recommendation, I am inclined to extend the benevolent provisions of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the revision petitioner on her executing a bond for a period of one year, during which she shall appear before the District Probation Officer, Thiruvananthapuram once in a fortnight. The revision petitioner is permitted to execute necessary bond under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, for which purpose she shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate -III, Neyyattinkara on 30-3-2009 and execute the bond for a period of one year on such terms and conditions whereby the learned Magistrate may impose. 6. Having regard to the fact that PWs.1 to 3 sustained injuries, the revision petitioner has to compensate the injured by paying adequate Crl.R.P. 170/09 -4- compensation. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay compensation to PWs.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.1,000/-each and Rs.500/- to PW3 under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 7. The revision petitioner is given one month's time to deposit the compensation before the court below. The revision petition is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.