IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1995 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.486/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.470/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED 2 TO 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIVANANDAN, S/O MADHAVAN, MANALIL VEEDU, NEAR ANATHALAVATTOM GURUMANDIRAM, CHIRAYINKEEZH DESOM, SARAKARA VILLAGE. 2. SASIKALA @ KUNJUMOL, D/O BABY OF -DO- -DO- 3. GIRIJA, D/O SARASWATHY OF -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKEEZH POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1995 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. ORDER This revision is at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.470 of 1995 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal. Petitioners along with accused No.1 were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge is that on 19.3.1995 at about 1.30 p.m. petitioners along with accused No.1 in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the compound of PW1, wrongly restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to him and PW3, his son with iron rod. Since accused No.1 was not available, case against petitioners proceeded. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment and payment of fine for the offences charged against them. They preferred Crl.Appeal No.486 of 1999 but without success. In the meantime, accused No.1 faced trial and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for offences charged against him. On his appeal being dismissed he preferred a revision petition as Crl.R.P.No.153 of 2009 and got a respite in the matter of sentence. Petitioners challenge the finding as concurrently entered by the courts below. 2. So far as alleged incident is concerned, PWs 1 to 3 and 6 were examined by the prosecution. PWs 1 and 3 are the injured. That they suffered injuries on the relevant day is proved by PW8, medical officer and Exts.P5 and Crl.R.P.No.1995/2009 2 P6, wound certificates. PWs 1 and 3 have given evidence regarding the incident as per the prosecution case. PW6, wife of PW1 has also given evidence regarding the incident. PW2, a neighbour stated that he heard commotion from the scene of occurrence, the compound of PW1 and found an assemblage there. He saw PW1 lying wounded. He also saw petitioners and accused No.1 going to their house (from the place of occurrence). Though PW2 did not support the prosecution in full, to some extent he corroborated PWs 1, 3 and 6. Relying on that evidence courts below found that petitioners committed offences as alleged. That finding is based on an appreciation of evidence of the witnesses including the injured. I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding as it is not shown that it is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 3. Coming to the extent of sentence awarded to the petitioners, learned counsel submitted that petitioners are now undergoing imprisonment. It is seen from the copy of order in Crl.R.P.No.153 of 2009 that sentence awarded to accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Code was modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs.7,500/- payable to PWs 1 and 3. Sentence awarded for other offences was modified as fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also Crl.R.P.No.1995/2009 3 taking into account the modification of sentence made in favour of accused No.1, I am of the view that so far as the substantive sentence is concerned, period of imprisonment already under gone by the petitioners is sufficient. At the same time, petitioners have to pay compensation to PWs 1 and 3 which considering the nature of injuries suffered by them is fixed as Rs.1,000/- each per petitioner for each of PWs 1 and 3. Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent: i. Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is modified and confined to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners. ii. Each of the petitioners are directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to PWs 1 and 3 as compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Liability of the petitioners is to deposit Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each (aggregate amount will be Crl.R.P.No.1995/2009 4 Rs.6,000/-). That amount shall be shared by PWs 1 and 3 equally. Petitioners are granted three weeks' time from today to deposit the compensation in the trial court as aforesaid. iii. Petitioners shall be released from jail forthwith if not required to be detained otherwise. Issue intimation to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks