IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2636 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.247/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.79/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- BIJU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SANKARAMANGALAM VEEDU, WARD NO.4, KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUKUMARAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PURAKKATTCHIRAYIL VEETTIL, WARD NO.4, KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. No. 2636 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 06 -08-2008 ORDER In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.79 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Cherthala, for an offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.c. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the lower appellate court for an offence punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 27-12-2001 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused on account of his previous enmity towards P.W.1 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to P.W.1 by beating him with a fencing stick resulting in P.W.1 sustaining a fracture on the ulna of the right forearm. 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 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to P7 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 a stick as MO1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused Crl. R.P. No. 2636 of 2008 -:2:- 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 24th April 2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under under Sec. 326 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court , Alappuzha the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 16th February 2008 altered the conviction into one punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 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. Crl. R.P. No. 2636 of 2008 -:3:- 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, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Sec. 324 I.P.C. is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs. 7500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as compensation to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C. On failure to pay compensation he shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. The petitioner is given 45 days time to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. Crl. R.P. No. 2636 of 2008 -:4:- ani. Crl. R.P. No. 2636 of 2008 -:5:-