IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2751 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.761/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.I,THRISSUR CC.381/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUNJANKU, NADAKKAL, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 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 14.08.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2751 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 14th 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 is the accused in C.C. No. 381 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 02.03.2001, at about 8.45 p.m., on account of the previous enemity towards PW1 who is his younger brother, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by hitting him with a wooden reaper resulting in PW1 sustaining injuries including a fracture on his left hand. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned CRL.R.P. NO. 2751/2008 :2: offence, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4. 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 examined DW1 as defence witness. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 23.08.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 761 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur, the Additional Sessions Court as per judgment dated 09.07.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. CRL.R.P. NO. 2751/2008 :3: 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 the conviction under Section 326 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation under Section 357 CRL.R.P. NO. 2751/2008 :4: (3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is given two months time to pay the compensation. 8. The petitioner is stated to have been taken into custody today morning in execution of the sentence imposed on him. The petitioner shall be released from custody forthwith unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. However, the direction for release shall be subject to his liability to pay the compensation and imprisonment till the rising of the Court as above. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv