IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2063 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.218/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.1184/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ` KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAFI, S/O.ALIKUNJU, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2063 of 2008 =================== Dated: 25.06.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the 1st accused in C.C. No.1184 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Kodungallur for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Section 324 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 29.7.04 at 7.15 a.m., the 2nd accused wrongfully restrained PW1 while in the property of PW1 and A1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating with a glyciridia stem and the accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC. 3. The revision petitioner/ 1st accused alone was available to face the trial, since the 2nd accused was absconding. On 1st Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2008 -:2:- 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 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and got marked one glyciridia stem as MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 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 23.02.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for one week under Section 341 IPC and for the offences under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2008 -:3:- appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the III Addl.Sessions Court( Adhoc) 1, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.04.07, partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the petitioner of the offences punishable under section 341 IPC but confirmed the conviction entered and sentence passed under Section 324 IPC. 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 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 justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed Crl.R.P.No.2063 of 2008 -:4:- 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.8,500/-(Rupees eight thousand five hundred only) as compensation payable to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The compensation amount shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 25 th day of June, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj