IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3543 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CRA.1021/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.14/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SURESH BABU, S/O. IMBICHI, KANIYARAKKAL, KAKKODI VILLAGE, KIZHAKKUMURI.P.O., PADINHATTUMURI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3543 of 2010 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated this the 2nd day of December, 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.14/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 332 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 332 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 25.6.2005 at about 3.20 p.m when PW1, who was a Police Constable attached to Kasba Police Station, Kozhikode went to Chennai Auto Consultants and Finance Establishment for data collection, the accused, who was employed as a Security Officer and sitting in front of the office, caught hold of PW1 and on his chest. When PW1 warded off the assault by the accused , accused caught hold on his right hand and twisted causing injury and pain to PW1. On account of the above act of the accused, PW1 was deterred in perusing his official duty. The accused was thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 332 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.3543/2010 -:2:- 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 9 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked 9 documents as Exts. P1 to P9. 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 4.10.2007, found the revision petitioner guilty of the an offence punishable under Section 332 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 13.11.2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed Crl.R.P.No.3543/2010 -:3:- 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 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 is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and on default to pay the Crl.R.P.No.3543/2010 -:4:- fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. From out of the fine amount a sum of `2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation. The petitioner is given 45 days from today to deposit the fine amount. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 2 nd day of December, 2010. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj