IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 476 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.347/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.444/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN BLANKECHIRA HOUSEM WARD NO.II KAINAKARY PANCHAYATH, KUTTAMANGALAM , KAINAKARY. 2. SUDHAPPAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VIKARAMAN KUPPISSERICHIRA HOUSE, WARD NO.II KAINAKARY PANCHAYATH, KUTTAMANGALAM , KAINAKARY. 3. HARIDAS @ ANIYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, BLANKECHIRA HOUSE, WARD NO.II KAINAKARY PANCHAYATH, KUTTAMANGALAM , KAINAKARY. 4. RAMESAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O,VIKRAMAN KUPPISSERICHIRA HOUSE, WARD NO.II KAINAKARY PANCHAYATH, KUTTAMANGALAM , KAINAKARY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMAMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 476 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 5th March 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused in C.C. No.444 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Ramankary, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 447 read with Section 34 I.P.C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 441 read with Sec. 34 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 4-5-2006 at about 1 p.m. the accused who are supporters of L.D.F. due to their political enmity towards P.W.1 who is the supporter of U.D.F. and in furtherance of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to P.W.1, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of P.W.1 at Kainakkary. After calling out P.W.1, A1 wrongfully restrained P.W.1 by catching hold of him and A2 to A4 slapped him on his face causing pain. When P.W.4 intervened, A2 to A4 pushed her causing annoyance to her. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned Crl.R.P. 476 of 2009 -:2:- 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. 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 28-6-2008 acquitted the revision petitioners of the offence under Sec. 354 I.P.C. but convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 447 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. For their conviction under Secs. 323 and 447 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioners was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and for their conviction under Sec. 341 I.P.C. each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl.A. No. 347 of 2008 the learned Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 26- 11-2008 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. besides a fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the offences. The fine amount was directed to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction Crl.R.P. 476 of 2009 -:3:- 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, for their conviction under Section 341, 323 and 447 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioners shall undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- under Sections 323 and 447 I.P.C. each and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- under Sec. 341 as compensation to P.W.1. The petitioners shall deposit the compensation amount within 45 days from today before the trial court failing which the defaulting petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 5 th day of March 2009. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ Crl.R.P. 476 of 2009 -:4:- ani ani.