IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2841 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.306/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM CC.746/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- XAVIER, S/O.DEVADAS, CHINNAKKAVILA VEEDU TC 52/203, CHANALKKARA, OLD KARAKKAMANDAPAM, KARUMOM DESOM, NEMOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION) BY P.P.SRI.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P.No.2841 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No.746/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara, for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 28.10.2001 at about 7.15 p.m the accused out of his enmity towards PW3 fisted on his face while inside the tea shop run by PW1 near old Karakkamandapam junction and consequently PW3 sustained injuries on his lips and lost a tooth on the upper jaw. The accused had 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 CRL.R.P. NO.2841/08 :2: offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and got marked seven documents as Exts. P1 to P7 and two material objects as MOs 1 and 2. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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 5.4.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/= and on default of fine to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 325 I.P.C. For his conviction under Section 323 I.P.C, no separate sentence was imposed. From out of fine, a sum of Rs.2,000/= was directed to be paid to PW3 as compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A.No. 306/2006 before the Additional Sessions CRL.R.P. NO.2841/08 :3: Court, Trivandrum as per the judgment dated 9.7.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though 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 of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction and sentence under CRL.R.P. NO.2841/08 :4: Section 325 I.P.C the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.12,000/= to PW3 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is given 45 days 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. Dated this the 21st day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. cl