IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 839 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.446/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.1389/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, W/O.SASI, MUNJANATTUSSERIL HOUSE, AKAVALAVU, PAKKIL, NATTAKOM. 2. VASANTHI, W/O.RAJU, THAYYILMATTATHIL HOUSE, AKAVALAVU, PAKKIL, NATTAKOM. 3. VENU, S/O.NARAYANAN, KAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, AKAVALAVU, PAKKIL, NATTAKOM. 4. BIJU, S/O.SASI, MUNJATTUSSERIL HOUSE, AKAVALAVU, PAKKIL, NATTAKOM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL Crl.R.P.No.839/2009 2 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.839 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 27.03.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.1389 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Changanassery for offences punishable under Sections 324,326 and 447 read with 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 13.10.02 at 9 a.m, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention criminally trespassed upon the property of PW3 and voluntarily caused grievous hurt and hurt to PW3 by beating her with sticks and also pelting stones at her. 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 5 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and 4 material objects as MOs.1 to 4. Crl.R.P.No.839/2009 -:2:- 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 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 23.5.2007 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 447 read with 34 I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 326 IPC and each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 447 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.446 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 18.11.08 allowed the appeal in part altering the conviction under Section 326 to Section 325 IPC and sentenced each of the revision petitioners to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.2000/-. Hence, this Revision. Crl.R.P.No.839/2009 -:3:- 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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 petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve 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 hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead, for their conviction under Section 447 IPC each of the revision petitioner is sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days . For their conviction under Section 325 IPC, each of the Crl.R.P.No.839/2009 -:4:- revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to PW3, the injured. The petitioners are given two months' time to deposit the compensation as well as the fine amount before the trial court, failing which the petitioners shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months 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 27th day of March, 2009 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj