IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3920 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRA.315/2009 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-II, ADHOC), THRISSUR C.C.422/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY. .................. REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- MOHANAN, AGED 40, S/O.GOPALAN, VETTIYARA HOUSE, MEPPADAM DESOM, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3920 of 2010 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated this the 23rd 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.422/2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Wadakkanchery for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 16.06.2005 at 2 p.m the petitioner wrongfully restrained PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to him with a knife, which is a dangerous weapon and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 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 Crl.R.P.No.3920/2010 -:2:- adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and a material object as MO No.1. 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 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of `5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, the lower appellate court as per Crl.R.P.No.3920/2010 -:3:- judgment dated 029.11.2010 confirmed the conviction entered and the 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 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 Crl.R.P.No.3920/2010 -:4:- 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 sum of `10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation. From out of the compensation amount a sum of `7000/- shall be paid to PW1/injured and the balance of `3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) shall be credited to the State. The petitioner is given two months time to deposit the compensation amount, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.3920/2010 -:5:-