IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 287 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.212/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.1067/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------- ANIRUDHAN, S/O.VAVA, ALASSERIYIL VEEDU, WARD NO.12, VAYALAR PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 287 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 15th day of February, 2008. ORDER The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 1067/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 354 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 12.09.2004 at about 1 p.m the accused persons trespassed into the compound of PW1 Geetha Devi and outraged the modesty of her sister Rajamma, who is mentally retarded and dump girl by embracing her. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, 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. CRL.R.P. NO. 287/2008 : 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 examined a neighbour as DW1. 5. The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 28.02.2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 354 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three days under Section 447 IPC. Even though the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha as Crl. Appeal No. 212/2007, the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track -II, Alappuzha as per judgment dated 24.08.2007 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence this revision. 6. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. CRL.R.P. NO. 287/2008 : 3: 7. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction recorded against him, in as much as the said conviction has been recorded by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction, which is accordingly confirmed. 8. What now survives for consideration is the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is aged 52 and the victim was aged 40 years. PW1, her sister had witnessed the act of the accused in clasping the victim from the compound of PW1 into which the accused had made an entry for cutting and removing the grass. Considering the fact that the mentally retarded victim was not examined as a witness by employing the services of an interpreter and that all that the revision petitioner did was to clap the victim who came running to him while he was busy cutting grass from the courtyard of PW1's house, I do not think that the petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration. I am CRL.R.P. NO. 287/2008 : 4: of the view that an appropriate punishment of imprisonment till the rising of the court and an adequate compensation and or fine shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, for conviction under Section 354 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. For his conviction under Section 447 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three days. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be disbursed to PW1 as the compensation payable to Rajamma. The fine amount shall be deposited within 45 days from today, failing which the petitioner shall undergo the default sentence. He shall appear before the trial court on 28.03.2008 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. This Crl. R.P is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. CRL.R.P. NO. 287/2008 : 5: rv