IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2339 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.21/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD CC.248/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------ PRADEEP. S/O.SWAMINATHAN THOTTINGALPURA , CHOLOD, MATTUMANTHA, C.N.PURAM PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2339 of 2008 =================== Dated: 16.07.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 248 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 read with 34 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 1.2.01, at about 9 p.m. on the road in front of the building in which PW1 and his family are residing at Cholode, the 4 accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of causing hurt to PW1 and voluntarily wrongfully restrained PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by A4 holding the shirt of PW1 and A2 beating him with a stick and A1,A3 and A4 beating him with bare hands and kicking him with their legs and the accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 Crl.R.P.No.2339/08 2 read with 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 prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and one wooden stick as MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 20.9.03 found A1 to A3 guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 341 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 323 IPC. They were acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.2339/08 3 On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, as Crl.Appeal No.21 of 2004, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 24.04.08 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 the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Crl.R.P.No.2339/08 4 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 Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and on default to pay the amount, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the conviction under Section 341 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. The petitioner shall pay or deposit the compensation 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 16th day of July, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2339/08 5