IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3569 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.144/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.461/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED IST ------------------------------------------ SIMON, S/O.PATHROSE, RESIDING AT TC 45/258,PUTHUVALPURAYIDOM,BEHIND CHERIYATHURA FISHERIES SCHOOL, VALLAKKADAVU, VALIYATHURA WARD MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 3569 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 5th day of March, 2010 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 461 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: The three accused persons out of their previous enmity towards P.W.1 (Chillu Amma) in connection with a property dispute, at about 6.30 p.m. on 16-6-2002 near the Fisheries School, Cheriathura, Vallakadavu Valiyathura Ward, Muttathara Village called obscene words at her and A1 beat her on her head with a stick causing an injury, A2 beat her with a broom on her chest and A3 facilitated A1 and A2 to attack her. The accused have thereby committed an offences Crl. R.P. 3569 of 2009 -:2:- punishable under Sections 354 and 324 read with Sec. 34 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 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. When called upon to enter on his defence he has produced 5 documents which was got marked as D1 to D5. 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 22-1-2007 acquitted A2 and A3 of all the offences and acquitted A1 of the offence punishable under Sections 354 I.P.C. but convicted A1 of the offence punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C. For the said conviction he was sentenced to Crl. R.P. 3569 of 2009 -:3:- rigorous 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 one month. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 144 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 31-7- 2009 dismissed the Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. 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 Crl. R.P. 3569 of 2009 -:4:- 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, for his conviction under Section 324 I.P.C. the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) of which Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) shall be paid to P.W.1 the injured and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid as fine to the Government. On default to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall undergo default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner is given two months' time to deposit the compensation amount. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted towards the fine due to the Government. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. ani/ Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/