IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 550 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.182/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, MANKERI CC.552/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------------------------------- ANIKKAL SUNNY, S/O. DEVASSYA, ANIKKAL HOUSE, ODAKKAYAN, VETTILAPPARA POST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.550 of 2009 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 13.02.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C. No.552 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M-1, Manjeri for offences punishable under Sections 341,354,323,324 and 506(1) IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 341,323 and 324 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 6.8.04 at about 5.45 p.m., while PW1, Lisi George, was walking along the public road situated near the shop of PW5 at Odakkayam, the accused, out of his enmity towards her, pulled her down. Thereafter, he pulled her blouse which was torn and thereafter kicked her and threatened that she would be done away with. When PW2, her husband intervened with a view to save PW1 the accused mounted an attack on him with a granite stone (MO2)causing injuries to PW2. Crl.R.P.No.550/09 -:2:- 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 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 5 documents as Exts.P1 to 5 and 2 material objects as MO1 and MO2. 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 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 31.03.2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341,323 & 324 I.P.C. For his conviction under Section 341 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- For his conviction under Section 323 IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and for Crl.R.P.No.550/09 -:3:- for his conviction under Section 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with appropriate default clauses. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Manjeri as Crl. Appeal No.182/2006, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 26.11.2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough 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 Crl.R.P.No.550/09 -:4:- 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 set aside and instead, for his conviction under Section 341 IPC, the fine imposed on the petitioner alone is sustained and on default to pay the fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. Similarly the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 323 IPC is also sustained. Default sentence shall be simple imprisonment for one month. For his conviction under Section 324 IPC, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- as compensation to PW1. The fine amount as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court within 45 days from today, failing which he shall suffer the default sentence. On default to deposit the compensation amount, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.550/09 -:5:-