IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2371 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.464/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.365/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: -------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMEDL, AGED 47 YEARS, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU PALUVALLY WARD, KALARA VILLAGE ANAKUDI MURI BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODE, IN CRIME NO.157/2001 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2371 of 2008 =================== Dated: 20.08.2008 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.365 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 452,324 and 379 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 2.11.01 at about 1.10 p.m., the accused out of his enmity towards PW1 criminally trespassed into the grocery shop of PW1 at Paluvally Junction at Kallara and inflicted stab injuries on PW2 the wife of PW1 resulting in PW2 sustaining stab injuries on left side of her chest, back of her chest just, above her left hip and also on her left cheek and abrasion on her neck. The accused also committed theft of currency notes worth Rs.10,000/- kept inside the table of the shop. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008 -:2:- 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 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to 5. 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 31.05.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months each for the said offences. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5000/- was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation. On appeal Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008 -:3:- preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.464 of 2005 before the Sessions Court(Fast Track III), Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 29.02.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming 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 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 Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008 -:4:- will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 324 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to PW2, the injured. For his conviction under Section 452 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court 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 3 months. The revision petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as well as the compensation amount within two months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 20 th day of August, 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008 -:5:-