IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2464 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.478/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.320/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M.S.GEORGE, S/O.SCARIA, MALIAMKADAVIL VEEDU, CHEERAMADA, KANTHALAM, KAIRADI P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2464 of 2008 =================== Dated: 23.07.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.320 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Alathur for an offences punishable under Section 324 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 10.12.2000 at about 2 p.m. the accused, due to his previous enmity towards PW1, Sathyabhama voluntarily caused hurt to her by hitting her with an aluminium pot full of water which she was carrying and PW1 sustained injuries to her head. 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 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and one aluminium pot as MO1. Crl.R.P.No.2464/08 -:2:- 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 31.10.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad as Crl.A.No.478 of 2005, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 1.7.2008 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 Crl.R.P.No.2464/08 -:3:- 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. 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.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. On default to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation 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 23 rd day of July, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2464/08 -:4:-