IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1037 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.313/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK III, TRIVANDRUM CC.298/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. KRISHNAN, S/O.PACHAN, CHINNU BHAVAN, CHAKKOTTUKONAM, MEKKOLLA DESAM, KOLLAYIL VILLAGE. 2. VIJAYAN @ KUNCHU, THEECHAKKUZHY VEEDU, MARUTHANOOR DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1037 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioners, who were accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.298 of 1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyatinkara for offences punishable under Sections 323 IPC and 341 read with Sec 34 IPC, assail the conviction entered and sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the three accused persons on 24.3.1999 at 11.15 p.m, in prosecution of their common intention wrongfully restrained PW1 from the vicinity of the house of A1 and A1 fisted PW1 on his left cheek and A2 fisted PW1 on his back 4 to 5 times and A3 kicked on his abdomen and the accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 read with 34 IPC. 3. Even though there were three accused persons, since A3 was found to be a juvenile, the case against him was split up Crl.R.P.No.1037 of 2008 2 and he was forwarded to the Juvenile Court for being dealt with according to law. A1 and A2 (the revision petitioners herein) alone faced the trial. On the revision petitioners pleading not guilty before the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. On the side of the prosecution six witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW6 and five documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. 4. The revision petitioners denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and maintained their innocence. They examined one defence witness as DW1. 5. The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 30.04.05 found both the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- an on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 323 IPC. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.1037 of 2008 3 6. Aggrieved by the conviction entered and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Trivandrum as Crl.A.No.313/2005. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-III) as per judgment dated 18.1.08 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them. Hence this revision. 7. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioners on various grounds, in as much as the conviction has been entered by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction entered against the revision petitioners. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the conviction entered against them. I am of the view that a sentence of Crl.R.P.No.1037 of 2008 4 imprisonment till the rising of Court and an appropriate compensation shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead, for the conviction under Section 341 IPC, each of the petitioner is directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. For the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C, each of the petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj /True Copy/ P.A To Judge