IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 258 of 2002 -------------------------------------------- CRA.130/1995 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.665/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS 1 TO 3/A1 TO 3: 1. NARAYANAN, S/O. SANKARAN, RAJEEV BHAVAN, MUTTARA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VOLLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. SUKUMARAN, S/O. RAMAN, POOVANVILA VEEDU, MUTTARA MURI, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. 3. NARAYANAN @ PODIYAN, S/O. NEELAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.J.AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2028/2002 IN CRL.R.P.NO.258/2002 CLOSED 26.5.2009 SD/-K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.258 of 2002 -------------------------- ORDER This revision is filed by Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.665/93 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottarakara against the conviction and sentence concurrently passed against them by the courts below for offences under Sections 324, 427 and 452 IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners as also Accused Nos.4 to 10 in the case to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year each for offences under Sections 452, 324 and 427 IPC with benefit of concurrency and also sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 452 IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months. In appeal, the appellate court evaluated and re-appraised the entire evidence in the case and found that there is no sufficient evidence to convict Accused Nos.4 to 10 CRRP 258/02 2 and acquitted them, but confirmed the conviction as also the sentence passed by the court below as against the petitioners, who are Accused Nos.1 to 3. It is the said concurrent conviction and sentence that is assailed in this revision by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently advanced arguments before me contending that the petitioners were being implicated falsely by PW1 on account of previous animosity; that there is no evidence of any overt act having been done by Accused Nos.2 and 3 and further that invoking Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 IPC in a case, where there are only three persons as accused, is improper and illegal. The last contention is repelled as unsound for the reason that there were altogether ten accused and framing of charge for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 IPC is quite in order and well founded. It is true that for want of sufficient evidence to convict CRRP 258/02 3 Accused Nos.4 to 10, they were acquitted. But, that does not mean that there was no rioting except that as against the named Accused Nos.4 to 10 there was no convincing evidence to enter into a conviction against them as well. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the entire evidence in the case to contend that the case is one foisted by PW1 even against the petitioners who were named in the F.I. Statement and in the FIR on account of previous animosity and that they deserve an acquittal. Having gone through the entire evidence and the judgments of the courts below, I am convinced that there is no incorrectness, irregularity or impropriety in the conviction entered into against the petitioners by the courts below. The conviction so entered into against the petitioners concurrently by the courts below deserve only to be confirmed. CRRP 258/02 4 4. Finally, it is urged by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are persons against whom there is no other criminal case registered; that they are not having any bad antecedents and that therefore, the period of imprisonment be reduced. On bestowing anxious consideration to the sentence awarded and to the submissions made, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the petitioners deserves to be modified reducing the term of imprisonment, but, increasing the amount of fine. 5. In the result, I reduce the term of imprisonment awarded for offences under sections 452, 324 and 427 IPC from one year to six months with benefit of concurrency, but, at the same time, enhance the fine amount imposed against the petitioners for offence under Section 452 IPC to Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of four months. In the event of CRRP 258/02 5 the fine being realised, an amount of Rs.4,000/- deposited by each of the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be paid to PW1 as compensation. This revision is disposed of as above. 26th May, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRRP 258/02 6 K.P.Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.258 of 2002 -------------------------- ORDER 26th May, 2009