IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 556 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.595/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.905/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN @ RAJAN, MULLAMKUZHY VEEDU KULAVUPARA, ANACODE, VEERANAKAVU. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ========================= CRL.R.P.NO.556 OF 2008 ========================= Dated this the 11th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who is the first accused in C.C.905/1996 on the file of the JFCM, Kattakkada, challenges the conviction and sentenced passed concurrently by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 341 IPC. 2. What has been unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following: There is a property dispute between PW3, the father of PW1 and the first accused. The first accused and PW3 are brothers. On account of the enmity arising out of the said property dispute, on 30.7.1996 at 10 p.m. accused 1 to 5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of voluntarily causing hurt to PW1. In prosecution of their common object A1 assaulted PW3 from a ridge at Kalavupara road. First accused slashed PW3 with a chopper on the left lower jaw and caused injuries. It was done after wrongfully restraining him. 3. PW1 is the son of PW3, the injured and PWs.2 and first CRRP 556/2008 2 accused are brothers. PW5 is the widow of PW2. 4. Both the courts below have relied on the testimony of PWs.1 and 3 of whom PW3 is the injured. There was no reason why this injured witness PW3 was falsely implicated in the case as accused. The conviction recorded concurrently by the courts below does not call for any interference by this court and the same is accordingly confirmed. 5. What survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay the fine to undergo imprisonment for 10 days. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. 6. Having regard to the close relationship between the parties and in the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, I am of the view that the revision petitioner does not deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the conviction under Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on him under Section 324 IPC is set aside and the petitioner is CRRP 556/2008 3 sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.4,000/=shall be paid to PW3 by way of compensation. The fine amount shall be remitted before the trial court within one month from today. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 341 IPC is not interfered with. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/