IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2034 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.40/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.419/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANTS 1,2 & 4/ACCUSED 1,2 & 4: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF PODIYAN, MUKALUVILA THEKKATHIL VEEDU, POOVATOOR PADINJARU MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. MOHANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. PODIYAN, ARUN BHAVAN, MUKALUVILA, THEKKATHIL VEEDU, POOVATOOR PADINJARU MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. PODICHI, AGED 58 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF THEVI, MUKALUVILA, THEKKATHIL VEEDU, POOVATOOR PADINJARU MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (STATE): ----------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 2034 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 419 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottarakkara for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently by the courts below for the said offences. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- 2. On 19.07.2003, at about 12.30 midnight, accused Nos. 1 to 4 wrongfully restrained PWs 1 and 2 from a public property at Kulakad village. A1 held PW1 by the neck and pushed him down and PW1 sustained an injury on the right knee of his left leg. A2 beat PW1 with a stick on his back and volountarily caused hurt. When PW2 intervened, A2 slapped him on the cheek and A4 beat PW3 on the left hand causing injury to the witness. A3 chased him and beat him on his back with a stick. The accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 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 CRL.R.P. NO. 2034/2008 : 2: prosecution altogether examined 4 witnesses as PWs 1 to 4 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 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 26.12.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 341 IPC, a fine of Rs.2,500/- under Section 324 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323 IPC imposing default sentence as well. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.3,500/- was directed to be paid to PW1 by way of compensation. The 3rd accused in the case is absconding. Even though the revision petitioners filed an appeal as Crl. Appeal No. 40 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Kollam, as per judgment dated 26.02.2008 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 2034/2008 : 3: 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered and sentence passed against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction and the sentence have been entered after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, I see little scope for interference by this Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction. The revision petitioners have been let off with a fine only without any sentence of imprisonment. I am not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by both the courts below. This Revision is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him. The petitioners are given two months time from today to deposit the fine amount failing which they shall undergo default sentence as imposed by the courts below. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 2034/2008 : 4: