IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2477 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.73/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.32/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL REVN. PETITIONER: -------------------------------- 1. NOUSHASD, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED NOUSHAD MANZIL, PALAMKONAM MANICKAL MURI, PULAMPARA VILLAGE 2. SELVARAJ, S/O.GEORGE PALLITHARA PUTHEN VEEDU, PULAMKONAM, MANICKAL MURI, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE 3. JOSE @ JOY, S/O.GEORGE PALLITHARA PUTHEN VEEDU, DO.DO. 4. MANIYAN, S/O.PANGAN, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, O/O.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM S.I. OF POLICE, VENJARAMOODU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH CRL.R.P NO.2481/0/ AND 2492/08 ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.Nos.2477, 2481 & 2492 of 2008 =================== Dated: 25.07.2008 O R D E R The revision petitioners,who are accused Nos.2 to 6, 9 & 11 in C.C. No.32 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427,324 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 3.8.96 at 11.30 in the night the 11 accused persons and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object to the said assembly, they committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like pickaxe, spade etc. and trespassed into the property of PW1( Pathimuthu) situated at Palankonam Panchayat and committed mischief by destroying the southern and western boundary and fencing causing a loss of Rs.25,000/-. A1 pelted stones at PW2, thereby Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases -:2:- voluntarily caused injury on the left knee of PW2(Safir). A2 to A4 threatened PW1 and 2 by showing deadly weapons and criminally intimidated them. 3. All the accused persons except A1 and A7 faced the trial. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 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 them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 5.2.2000 found A2 to A6, A9 and A11 guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under sections punishable Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases -:3:- under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 427 read with 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 324 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 447 read with 149 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeals preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Fast Track (Ad hoc)No.II, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl. Appeal Nos.73, 85 and 86 of 2000, the lower appellate court as per common judgment dated 31.05.2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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.2477/08 & con.cases -:4:- 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 that the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead each of them is sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Sections 143,147,148,447 and 506(ii)read with 149 IPC and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) under Section 324 IPC and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the conviction under Section 427 IPC each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases -:5:- only) shall be paid to PW1 for the loss sustained by him and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) paid to PW2, the injured. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 25 th day of July, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj