IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 776 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO.31/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGEM PATHANAMTHITTA C.C.NO.1439/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM-1, PATHANAMTHITTA REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------------- M.R. RAKESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANRAN, POILAKADA VEEDU, THAZHE VETTIPURAM, MADATHUMPADI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.776 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 12.03.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.1439 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 323,324 and 341 read with 34 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 8.07.2005, at about 6.45 p.m, the accused persons who were father and son, out of their enmity towards PW1 and in prosecution of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to PW1, at Madathipadi Junction near the residence of PW1, A1 set upon PW1 shouting obscene words and wrongfully restrained and caught hold of him, while his son, the 2nd accused fisted PW1 at his back and Crl.R.P.No.776/09 -:2:- thereafter picked up a knife from the nearby petty shop of PW2 and stabbed PW1 with it on his scapula 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 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 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 31.12.07 found both the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. For their conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of them was sentenced to Crl.R.P.No.776/09 -:3:- rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. No separate sentence was imposed for the conviction under Section 323 IPC. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand only) was directed to be given to PW1 as compensation . On appeal preferred by the 1st accused and the 2nd accused(revision petitioner) before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta as Crl.Appeal No.31 of 2008, the learned Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated28.11.2008 acquitted A1 of all the offences, but confirmed the conviction entered against the revision petitioner(A2) with regard to Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 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 Crl.R.P.No.776/09 -:4:- 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. 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation to PW1, the injured. On default to pay the compensation amount, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He is given 45 days from today to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court. Crl.R.P.No.776/09 -:5:- 8. The petitioner shall be released from prison forthwith, unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. His release shall, however be subject to his liability to undergo the sentence as aforesaid and to pay the compensation amount as aforesaid. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj