IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1472 of 2002() ------------------------------------- CRA.190/1999 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.24/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------- JUSTIN, S/O. KOLAKOZHI ANTONY, KIZHAKKE ODATHARAYIL, VELIYATHUPARAMBIL VEETTIL, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI - 1. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.VASANTH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANCHERRY, IN CRIME NO.157/95. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN.J ------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. 1472 OF 2002 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The Sub Inspector of Police, Mattacnchery Police Station, in Crime No.157/95 prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging the offence u/S. 326 of the Indian Penal Code with an allegation that at about 5.00 p.m. on 24.11.95, in front of a stationary shop at Kembiri road the revision petitioner fisted PW1 at his chest and felled him into a canal and from there he was lifted and then again fisted and kicked on various parts of the body. As a result, again PW1 fell down. Thereupon he was hit with a granite stone at his face and head, as a result of which PW1 sustained simple as well as grievous hurt. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Ext.P1 to P8 were marked. On evaluation of the evidence on record the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding that the prosecution succeeded to establish offence u/S.325 IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence he preferred Crl. Appeal No.190/1999 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The Crl.R.P.NO. 1472 OF 2002 2 Addl. Sessions Judge, to whom the appeal was made over concurred with the lower court. Consequently the appeal was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the conviction is not challenged. But he is assailing the sentence with plea that the revision petitioner was aged only 17 years on the date of the occurrence and he was a Coolie. It was further submitted that in 2002 the revision petitioner met with an accident and he is now disabled. In the above circumstance he is entitled to lenient sentence. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner was aged only 17 years at that time, it is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand the charge sheet would show that the revision petitioner was aged only 19 years on the date of the occurrence. As it is not assailed, that statement shall be given regard. As regards the subsequent accident and the disability, there is no evidence on record. Hence it is not reckoned. 4. Perusal of Ext.P2 and P3 wound certificates would show that Crl.R.P.NO. 1472 OF 2002 3 PW1 had sustained very severe injuries over his face and had fracture of mandible. PW1 had to undergo an open reduction of fracture mandible under general anasthesia. Taking into account of the nature of injury, in fact, the revision petitioner does not deserve any leniency. However, taking into account that he was aged only 19 years as on the date of occurrence and he was a Coolie at Fort Cochin, I find that rather than a vindicative and harsh sentence, a reformative sentence with due compensation to PW1 would be appropriate and that sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to PW1 would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to deposit Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to PW1 u/S.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. In the event of deposit, the compensation amount shall be disbursed to PW1. The revision petitioner is granted 2 months time to remit the compensation. Till Crl.R.P.NO. 1472 OF 2002 4 then the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. pm