IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3930 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.613/2006 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.423/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A/ACCUSED IN C.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- -- SUNILKUMAR, S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, SUNIL NIVAS, PERINGOTTU, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT IN CRL.A/COMPLAINANT IN C.C. ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 3930 of 2007 ````````````````` Dated: 26th June 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 accused in C.C. 423 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Punalur for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 320 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the court below concurrently for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 19-3-2005 at about 8.45 p.m. while P.W.1 was proceeding to his residence through a bye-road, the accused out of his previous enmity towards P.W.1, after wrongfully restraining P.W.1 slapped on the cheek and gave a cut injury on his scrotal sack with a knife. He has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 325 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the Crl.R.P. No. 3930 of 2007 -:2:- 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 P5. 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 30-10-2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Sec. 341 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for five months more. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Kollam the lower appellate court as per judgment dated, 30-06-2007 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. The lower appellate court also confirmed the direction that a sum of Rs. 3,500/- shall be paid to P.W.1 as compensation from out of the fine amount. Hence, this Crl.R.P. No. 3930 of 2007 -:3:- 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. I perused the lower court records which reveals that the scrotal sac of P.W.1 was cut exposing the testes as and this fact is confirmed by the doctor in Ext. P2 wound certificate. 8. 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Sec. 324 I.P.C. is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (3) Crl.R.P. No. 3930 of 2007 -:4:- Cr.P.C. On failure to pay the compensation he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. For the conviction under Sec. 341 I.P.C. he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. The fine as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within 45 days from today failing which he shall undergo the default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ ani.