IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 675 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.73/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.32/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/10TH ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------------------------- SHIJI, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, BIJU BHAVAN, PALANKONAM VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. MR. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN MR. RAJAN VELLOTH MR. SAIJO HASSAN MR. A.S.SABU MR. BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT/STATE:- ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ========================== Crl. R.P. No. 675 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. O R D E R The petitioner who is the 10th accused in C.C. No. 32 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 324 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 03.08.1996, at 11.30 in the night the 11 accused persons and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object to the said assembly, they committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like pickaxe, spade etc. and trespassed into the property of PW1(Pathimuthu) situated at Palankonam Panchayat and committed mischief by destroying the southern and western boundary and fencing causing a loss of Rs.25,000/-. A1 pelted stones at PW2, thereby voluntarily caused injury on the left knee of PW2 (Safir). A2 to A4 threatened PWs 1 and 2 by showing deadly weapons and criminally intimidated them. 3. All the accused persons except A1 and A7 faced the trial. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, Crl.R.P. No. 675/2009 : 2 : the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained thier innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 05.02.2000 found A2 to A6, A9 and A11 guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 427 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 324 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months under Section 447 r/w Section 149 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeals preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc) No. II, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl. Appeal No. 73, 85 and 86 of 2000, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 31.05.2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction Crl.R.P. No. 675/2009 : 3 : 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 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 the interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) under Section 324 IPC and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the conviction under Section 427 IPC, he 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 Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 for the loss Crl.R.P. No. 675/2009 : 4 : sustained by him and a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid to PW2, the injured. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv