IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 280 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------ CRA.369/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.988/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------- KUMAR ALIAS STANLEY KUMAR, VETTUKADU JOSEPH COTTAGE, KAVALAYOOR,MANAMBUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P.No.280 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 19.02.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.988 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Varkala for offences punishable under Sections341,324,379,326 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 24.10.1997, at about 3 p.m. while PW1 reached the pathway in front of his house at Moongodu Desom, the two accused persons out of their enmity towards PW1 and in prosecution of their common intention, the 2nd accused caught hold of PW1 and the 1st accused inflicted cut injuries on PW1 with a chopper on his left palm , left elbow and other parts of his body involving a fracture of Crl.R.P.No.280/09 -:2:- his left hand and the 2nd accused hit him with a granite stone. The accused also committed theft of a gold chain weighing 3 sovereigns worth Rs.9,000/- and wrist watch worth Rs.500/- which PW1 was wearing. The accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341,324,379 and 326 read with 34 IPC. 3. The revision petitioner/2nd accused alone stood for trial before the J.F.C.M, Varkala, since the 1st accused was absconding. On the 2nd 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 7 documents as Exts. P1 to 7. 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. Crl.R.P.No.280/09 -:3:- 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 27.09.2002 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341,324 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months each under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 18.07.2008 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 confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question Crl.R.P.No.280/09 -:4:- 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. From the report of the learned Magistrate it appears that the revision petitioner has been in Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram for 99 days including the two days of pre-trial detention. I am of the view that the said period of imprisonment shall meet the interests of justice for his conviction under Section 326 IPC. For his conviction under Section 341 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction under Section 324 IPC, he sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For his conviction under Section 326 IPC, he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 99 days and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentence of Crl.R.P.No.280/09 -:5:- imprisonment for 99 days already undergone by him shall suffice for the conviction under Section 326 IPC. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand only) shall be paid to PW1, the injured. The petitioner is given two months' time from today to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. He shall be released from custody forthwith, unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. However, his release shall be subject to his liability to pay the fine amount as indicated above. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.280/09 -:6:-