IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 549 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.152/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA CC.1188/2006 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR,S/O.AMBUJAKSHAN, ERUMATHANATHU HOUSE,VENMATTOM KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. P.VIJAYA BHANU MR. THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 549 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No.1188 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 353 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 20.11.2006 PW1, the de facto complainant who was a police Constable was on official duty. While he was standing on the public road near the residential house of one Chellappan in connection with the investigation of a complaint filed by PW2 Savithri, the wife of Chellappan, the accused scolded the de facto complainant and caught hold of the pants near the abdomen and twisted the same. Since the accused used criminal force to deter the de facto complainant from performing his official duty, he has Crl.R.P. No. 549/2010 -:2:- committed an offence punishable under Section 353 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 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 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 12.06.2009 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 152 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 05.11.2009 confirmed the conviction Crl.R.P. No. 549/2010 -:3:- entered and altered the sentence by reducing the imprisonment to one month. 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 353 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). On Crl.R.P. No. 549/2010 -:4:- default to pay the fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner is given one month's time to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv