IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2855 of 2008() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.13/03 OF JFCM-IV, KOZHIKODE REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ E.K.ANIL KUMAR, S/O BALAN, DEVAKI NIVAS, CHEROTTUVAYAL, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No.2855 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 22nd 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 was the accused in C.C. No.131/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 160 and 353 read with Section 34 I.P.C challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed concurrently against him by the court below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 12.11.2002 while PW1 and other police constables were engaged in flying squad duty at about 4 p.m, they received information through wireless that two persons were engaged in an altercation near B.G. road. The police party then reached the site and found that the accused were committing afray under the influence of liquor and causing obstruction to the pedestrians and users of the road. when PW1 and others CRL.R.P. NO.2855/08 :2: tried to take them into custody, the first accused snatched away the whistle cord of PW2 and caused obstruction to the discharge of official duty by the policemen and the accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined five witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked three documents as Exts. P1 to P3. 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 him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 30.1.2007 found both the accused guilty of the offences. For the conviction under Section 353 I.P.C each of them was CRL.R.P. NO.2855/08 :3: sentenced to undergo S.I for six months. For the conviction under Section 160 I.P.C, each of them was sentenced to S.I for 15 days. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Separate appeals were filed by each of the accused persons. The appeal filed by the revision petitioner was Crl.A.No.422/2007 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. As per the common judgment dated 22.7.2008, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction entered against both the accused persons. Sentence imposed on them under Section 353 read with Section 34 I.P.C was reduced to two months. Hence, this Revision. 6. 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. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question CRL.R.P. NO.2855/08 :4: 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 the conviction entered under Section 160 I.P.C the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.100/= and on default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I for five days. For the conviction under Section 353 I.P.C the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/=. On default to pay fine, he shall suffer S.I for one month. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. CRL.R.P. NO.2855/08 :5: rv