IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2860 of 2008() CRA.434/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK (ADHOC) II, TRIVANDRUM CC.322/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED 3 & 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABU, S/O. UNNI, AGED 31 YEARS, KARIKALLUVILAPUTHENVEEDU, PANAYODU, NEYYATINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SURESH S/O. BHASKARAN AGED 35 YEARS MAVADITHALAPUTHENVEEDU, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP.BY S.I. OF POLICE NEYYATINKARA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 29-08-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who were accused Nos. 3 and 5 in C.C. No. 322 of 1994 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable unde5r Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against them for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 25-12-1995 at about 5.30 a.m. accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, wooden sticks etc. and in prosecution of their common object A2 fisted the P.W.1 on his back and A1 and A2 fisted on his chest and P.W.1 sustained injuries on his lips, A2 fisted him on his right eye causing contusion, A3 beat P.W.1 on his lower abdomen with a stick, A4 beat him with an iron rod on his left knee. Seeing this incident, when P.W.2 the father of P.W.1 came to the spot A5 beat him with an iron rod on his head and P.W.2 sustained injuries. A4 beat Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 -:2:- P.W.3 with an iron rod on his toe and right hand. A4 also beat P.W.4 with an iron rod on his right leg. The occurrence took place at Kavalalakulam within the jurisdiction of Neyyattinkara police station. 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 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8. 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 8-10-1999 found all the accused persons guilty of the offences charged against them. For the conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323 each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and for the conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. each of them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by all the 5 accused persons before Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 -:3:- the Sessions Court, Thiruvananathapuram, the Addl. Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31-12-2007 confirmed the conviction entered but modified the sentence by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months under Secs. 143, 147, 148 and 323 I.P.C. and to six months under Sec. 324 I.P.C. 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, For their conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 -:4:- imprisonment for 15 days. For their conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each shall be paid as compensation to P.Ws 2 to 4 each under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be deposited within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani.