IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 812 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRL.A.160/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, MANJERI DIVISION. C.C.89/05 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI. REVN. PETITIONER(S):APPELLANT/ ACCUSED ---------------------------- VEERANKUTTY, S/O.HYDRU HAJI, KOTTANGODAN, VEETTILAPPARA AMSOM, KOOTAPARAMBA, ODAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYASOORIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY P.P. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 812 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 89/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class No.II (Forest Offences), Manjeri for offence punishable under section 326 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under 326 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows:- On 7-3-2004 at about 2.30 p.m. the accused beat PW1 Tomy with a bamboo stick on account of his previous enmity and thereby voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him. 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 11 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 11 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8 and marked MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against Crl.R.P . 812/2009 -2- 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 17-4-2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The fine amount was directed to be paid as compensation to PW1 under section 357 Cr.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Manjeri, the lower appellate court, as per judgment dated 17-11- 2008, confirmed the conviction entered and the 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. Crl.R.P . 812/2009 -3- 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified and he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to PW1 injured under section 357 Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is given 45 days from today to deposit the compensation before the trial court, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 8. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.