IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1685 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.224/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.367/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: ----------------------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUVA PADINJARE MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No.1685 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 29th day of May, 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 1st accused in C.C. No.567 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kayamkulam for offences punishable under Sections 451, 294(b) and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 451 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 08.04.2002, at 6.30 p.m, the two accused persons out of previous enemity towards PW1 committed house trespass with the intention of voluntarily causing hurt to PW1 (Devaki) and trespassed into the house bearing No. KCM 6/416 and abused PW1 in filthy language and A1 beat PW1 and A2 kicked PW1 while she was in the kitchen. When PW2, an inmate of the house came to the rescue of PW1, A2 inflicted an injury on the nose of PW2 CRL.R.P. No. -:2:- and forcibly caught hold of the right hand of PW2 and thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 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 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner 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 24.02.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 451 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 451 Cr.P.C and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 453 IPC. PW1 was directed to pay a compensation CRL.R.P. No. -:3:- of Rs.2000/-. The learned Magistrate released the 2nd accused on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Addl. District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Mavelikkara, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 16.03.2005 confirmed the conviction entered and modified the sentence reducing the punishment under Section 451 IPC to three months and under Section 323 IPC to one month. Hence, this Revision. 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 CRL.R.P. No. -:4:- 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. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 451 IPC and 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 under Section 323 IPC . From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 and a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) shall be paid to PW2 by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. No. -:5:-