IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1167 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.244/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC)-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.118/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 2 & 3:- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR THENGUVILA VEEDU, THAKARA PARAMB MADAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN UNNITHAN, THENGUVILA VEEDU, THAKARA PARAMB MADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR. M.SREEKUMAR MR. K.P.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ========================== Crl. R.P. No. 1167 of 2009 =========================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009,. O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No.118 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 28.12.1996, at 3.30 p.m., the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the property of PW1 situated at Thakara Paramb in Pallickal village and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by A1 hitting him with a stone causing an injury on the left eye-brow and A2 and A3 by fisting and kicking the recumbent PW1. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them 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 Crl.R.P.No. 1167/2009 : 2 : to 8 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and a stone as MO1. 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 them 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 09.06.1999 found the revision petitioners (who alone stood trial) guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 447 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC. They were each ordered to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to PW1 presumably under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 244 of 1999 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II as per judgment dated 31.05.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence, this Revision. Crl.R.P.No. 1167/2009 : 3 : 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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 petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. The sentence imposed by the courts below is set aside. I am of the view that interest of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for their conviction under Section 323 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For their conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation to PW1, the Crl.R.P.No. 1167/2009 : 4 : injured. For their conviction under Section 447 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioners are given one month's time from today to deposit the fine as well as the compensation amount before the trial court. On default to pay the compensation, the defaulting petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence. The petitioners shall report before the trial court on 29.04.2009 to receive the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv