IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2870 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.30/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.633/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- PYLI @ JOSEY, AGED 51, S/O. ANTHAPPAN, VATHIYEZHATHU HOUSE, WARD NO. 15, AROOR PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ...................................... Crl.R.P. No. 2870 of 2008 ....................................... Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 633 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala for an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 15.02.2004, at about 8 a.m the accused, out of his previous enemity towards PW1 Mary Theresa and with the intention of outraging her modesty, exhibited his nudity by removing the bathing towel which he was wearing and challenged her to take his photograph. The said conduct was to the extreme annoyance of PW1. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned CRL.R.P. NO. 2870/2008 :2: offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 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 17.12.2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 30 of 2008 before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 04.06.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 2870/2008 :3: 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 hereinafter. For his conviction and the sentence under Section 509 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. From out of the fine amount, a CRL.R.P. NO. 2870/2008 :4: sum of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv