IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2280 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2008 IN CRRP.54/2000 & CRA.39/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.1386/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ 1. ASHOKAN, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY NAMBIAR, PAZHASSI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. CHANDUKUTTY, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, PAZHASSI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- STATE - S.H.O. MATTANNUR, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2280 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who were the accused in C.C. No.1386 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the lower appellate court for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 20.10.1995, at about 1.20 p.m., at Perinchery in Pazhassi Amsom and Desom, the accused who are a son and his father, out of their previous enemity towards PW1, criminally trespassed into the paramba of the wife of PW1 and inflicted injuries on PW1 by beating with hands and the handle of a spade resulting in PW1 sustaining lacerated injury on his fore head and a fracture on his left fore arm. 3. 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 12 witnesses as PWs 1 to 12 and CRL.R.P. NO. 2280/2008 :2: got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and 4 material objects as Mos 1 to 4. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 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 27.01.2000 found both revision petitioners guilty of the offences charged against them and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for one month under Section 447 IPC, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 323 IPC and simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Section 326 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 39 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, the lower appellate court acquitted the revision petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 447 Cr.P.C, but confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them under Sections 323 and 326 IPC. Hence this revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 2280/2008 :3: 6. Even though 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 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 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 for the conviction under Section 323 IPC, each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days, for the conviction under Section 326 IPC, each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. From out of the fine amount, a sum of CRL.R.P. NO. 2280/2008 :4: Rs.8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) shall be paid to PW1, the injured as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioners shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv