IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2342 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.166/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD CRA.331/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ RAM @ RAMAR, S/O.PERIYASWAMY KUNKU MAIN ROAD, M.S.COLONY, THIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2342 of 2008 =================== Dated: 16.07.2008 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.166 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 25.4.04 at about 6.15 p.m. while PW1 was walking along the Chunnambuthara-Olavakkode public road near the bridge from east to west, a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.K10-N- 0432 driven by the revision petitioner in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, hit against PW1 from behind at a spot 50 c.m. to the north of the southern tarred edge of the said road running east-west and PW1 sustained a fracture of his left leg and skull. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Crl.R.P.No.2342/2008 :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 9 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to 8. 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 21.06.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months under Sec.279 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 338 IPC with a direction that the sentence shall run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.331/2005 before the Addl.Sessions Court(Ad hoc Crl.R.P.No.2342/2008 :3:- 1), Palakkad, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 1.09.07 confirmed the conviction entered but reduced the sentence passed against the revision petitioner for six months to 3 months under each of the said sections. 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 view that the interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision Crl.R.P.No.2342/2008 :4:- petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 279 IPC and for the conviction under Section 338 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and on default to pay the compensation he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount before the trial court within two months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2342/2008 :5:-