IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1289 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.NO. 593 OF 2006 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KOTTAYAM C.C. NO. 280 OF 2005 OF J.F.C.M. I. KOTTAYAM REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.NANU, KUNDARAKUNNEL VEEDU, MEENADOM VILLAGE, MEENADOM KARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PAMBADY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 11-04-2008 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. 280 of 2005 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 7-3-2005 at about 12.45 p.m. at Chappamattom the accused out of his enmity towards P.W.1 stopped the mini lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-5-E/1371 driven by P.W.1 and after pulling him out of the lorry beat him on his left cheek with bare hand and twisted his left hand resulting in dislocation of the left hand at the shoulder. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 -:2:- prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 16-09-2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months and one year respectively with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The revision petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to P.W.1 as compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. 6. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 1-3- 2008 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence directing the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 -:3:- 323 and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 325 I.P.C. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- from out of fine was directed to be paid to P.W.1 by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. 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, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Sec. 325 I.P.C. is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 -:4:- and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to P.W.1 under Sec. 3657 (3) Cr.P.C. The sentence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. is not interfered with. The fine as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within 45 days from today failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month under Sec. 325 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 323 I.P.C. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ ani.