IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1039 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.270/2006 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ( AD HOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.II, MANJERI CC.480/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOMAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, ELACHIKUNNEL VEEDU, KURUMBELANGEDU AMSOM, ERUMAMUNDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1039 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 24.03. 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 accused in C.C. No.480 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Nilambur for an offences punishable under Section 324 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 15.10.2004 at about 8.30 a.m., the accused out of his previous enmity towards Pws.1 to 3 attacked them with a knife inside the rubber estate belonging to one Vijayan situated at Kurimpelangadu in Erumamunda by striking PW2 on his right arm and striking PWs.1 and 3 on their forehead. 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.1039/2009 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to 7 and one knife 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 31.05.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.1000/- each was directed to be paid to Pws.1 and 3. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was directed to be paid to PW2. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Manjeri as Crl.Appeal No.270 of 2006, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 28.06.2006 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.1039/2009 -:3:- 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 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 imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to PWs.1 and 3 and Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven Crl.R.P.No.1039/2009 -:4:- thousand five hundred only) to PW2. On failure to pay the compensation amount the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner is given two months' time from today to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj