IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 140 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.83/1995 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC NO.359/93 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------- APPU RAMESH, FLAT NO.314, CHENKALCHOOLA COLONY, SECRETARIAT WARD, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.140 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. ORDER Revision petitioner along with A2 to A6 was chargesheeted by Cantonment Police in Crime No.112 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. Since A2 to A6 were not available for trial, case against them was split up. Revision petitioner faced trial, was convicted by learned Magistrate and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offences punishable under Sections 148, 452 and 326 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence is awarded. Period of detention already undergone was allowed to be set off. Revision petitioner preferred an appeal but that was dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. Heard counsel for revision petitioner and Public Prosecutor. Perused records. 3. Counsel submitted that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant conviction of revision petitioner and that at any rate, sentence awarded is excessive. Crl.R.P.No.140/2001 2 4. Case is that revision petitioner and others who formed unlawful assembly with the common object of voluntarily causing hurt/grievous hurt to PW1, trespassed into his house on 1.9.1993 at about 2 p.m. and in prosecution of the common object, revision petitioner voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1 with a short stick while A2 to A6 voluntarily caused hurt to him beating with hands. PWs 1 to 3 gave evidence regarding incident and spoke in favour of prosecution. PW4 examined PW1 on 1.9.1993 at about 3 p.m. and issued Ext.P2. PW1 suffered fracture of right supra clavicular region. PW1 came with the history that he was assaulted with stick. According to PW4, the injury could be caused as alleged. 5. Though it is contended by revision petitioner that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the incident, I find from the testimony of PWs 1 to 3 that they have clearly spoken to the incident and revision petitioner assaulting PW1 with short stick. PW8 who investigated the case stated that the short stick could not be traced. There is sufficient evidence to show that revision petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly which committed offence as alleged and that revision petitioner, in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1. Conviction entered on concurrent finding of fact required no interference. 6. Counsel submitted that the incident occurred about 15 years back and that revision petitioner as well as PW1 came from the same Crl.R.P.No.140/2001 3 locality. According to learned counsel, they are now living in peace. He requested that the period of detention already undergone by revision petitioner may be treated as substantive sentence. 7. Learned Magistrate has observed in the judgment that revision petitioner was under detention from 18.4.1994 to 8.6.1994 and again from 12.1.1995 to 31.1.1995. As pointed out by learned counsel, the incident occurred 15 years back. Motive stated by PW1 is that six or seven days before the incident somebody assaulted a boy in the locality and revision petitioner and others thought that he had given information regarding that. In the facts and circumstances stated above I am inclined to think that period of detention already undergone can be taken as substantive sentence. 8. PW1 who suffered grievous hurt at the hands of revision petitioner cannot be forgotten while showing leniency to revision petitioner. Ext.P2 shows that he suffered fracture of clavicle. He has undergone inpatient treatment at Medical College Hospital incurring expenses. He has undergone pain and suffering consequent to fracture. Taking these aspects into account, I am satisfied that a sum of Rs.12,000/- will be sufficient compensation to PW1 which the revision petitioner is bound to pay failing which, he has to undergo imprisonment. Resultantly, Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following lines:- Crl.R.P.No.140/2001 4 (1) Substantive sentence awarded to revision petitioner for offences found against him will be confined to the period of detention already undergone by him. (2) Revision petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to PW1 as compensation Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand only) within two months from this day failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P. No.615 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.140/2001 5 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.140 of 2001 ORDER 29th September, 2008