IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2419 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.312/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.95/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BABU,S/O.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KOMBANKUZHI, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2419 of 2008 =================== Dated: 21.07.2008 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. 95 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M- II, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506(i) Cr.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 16.3.04 at about 11.15 p.m., the accused beat PW1 on his head and shoulder with an iron rod from the public road at Sultanpet in front of the shop of PW1, after threatening to kill PW1. The accused has 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 Crl.R.P.No.2419/2008 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and an iron rode as MO1. 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 15.07.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506(i) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 506(i) IPC with a direction that the sentence shall run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Palakkad as Crl.Appeal No.312/2005, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 17.06.08 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. Crl.R.P.No.2419/2008 -:3:- 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 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 pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only), on default to pay the fine Crl.R.P.No.2419/2008 -:4:- to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 506 (ii) IPC . From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(1)Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 21 st day of July, 2008 Sd/- V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge