IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 214 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.94/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM CC.285/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAJI, S/O.MOHAMMED. AGED.30 YEARS, THYVILAKAM VEEDU, MADAN VILA, AZHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I OF POLICE, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.214 of 2009 =================== Dated: 11.02.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.285 of 1995 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,506(ii) and 324 read with 149 IPC, stands convicted for the aforesaid offences concurrently by the courts below. He has also been sentenced to imprisonment for various terms for those offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 7.12.94 at about 8.30 p.m near Madanvila bridge the 8 accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sword, iron rod, wooden sticks etc and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly they wrongfully restrained PW1 and others, criminally intimidated them and assaulted PWs.1 to 6 by cutting them with sword and hitting them with iron rods etc. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge Crl.R.P.No.214/2009 -:2:- 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 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 11 documents as Exts. P1 to P11. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 15.02.1999 found accused Nos.1,2 and 8 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,341,506(ii) and 324 read with 149 I.P.C. The revision petitioner/ 2nd accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offences punishable under sections 143,147 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for offences punishable under Section 341 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each for the offences punishable Crl.R.P.No.214/2009 -:3:- under Section 506(ii) and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court,Thiruvananthapuram as Crl.Appeal No.94/1999, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 21.8.07 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 view that the interests of justice Crl.R.P.No.214/2009 -:4:- will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly for his conviction under Sections 143,147,148, 341 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC. The petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-,500/-,1000/-,500/-,500/- and 500/- respectively. For the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only) which shall be distributed equally between Pws.1 to 6. On default to pay the fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. On default to pay the compensation amount he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as well as 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 11 th day of February, 2009. V.Ramkumar, Judge. Crl.R.P.No.214/2009 -:5:- sj