IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2476 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.302/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.283/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER / APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RAVINDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, KUNNU BUNGLOW VEEDU, ANAVOOR DESOM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.R.JAYAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ STATE: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J ============== Crl.R.P.No. 2476 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision, the revision petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C.No.283/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: Daughter of the accused was married to the son of PW1, Saraladevi. Their post marital life ran into rough weather soon and both of them started living apart. The accused was therefore at loggerheads with PW1, Saraladevi. On 23.10.1997, at about 6.00 pm, the accused criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW1 and after abusing her, caught hold of her by the hair and after forcing her to stoop the accused took up a closed pen knife and poked PW1 on her back with its handle. When PW1 shrieked aloud, the accused opened the knife and Crl.R.P.No. 2476 OF 2008 2 stabbed her on the back on the left side. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC. 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 6 witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 13.7.2000, found the accused guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for each of the offences. Crl.R.P.No. 2476 OF 2008 3 On appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No.302/2000 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31.5.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. 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 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 Crl.R.P.No. 2476 OF 2008 4 hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under both the offences is set aside. For the conviction under Section 452 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till raising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to PW1 under Section 357 Cr.P.C. On failure to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as well as the compensation within two months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE bkn/-