IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 354 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.17/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.226/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ DASAN, S/O.SANKARAN, THEKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE, KODANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.354 of 2000 =================== Dated: 26.06.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 226 of 1995 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Thrissur for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offence. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 5.02.95 at 4 p.m., the accused, out of the previous enmity towards PW1 (who is now no more), on the public road near the Thaikkat Mooss Vaidhyarathnam Oushadasala at Kodannur, hit PW1 with a granite stone on the back side of his head resulting in PW1 sustaining injuries. 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 Crl.R.P.No.354/2000 -:2:- support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3 and one granite stone MO1. 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 13.01.98 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences against him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- on on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thrissur as Crl.Appeal No.17/1998, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 20.03.2000, confirmed the conviction entered and reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple Crl.R.P.No.354/2000 -:3:- imprisonment for two months. Fine amount if realised was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 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 will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a sum of Crl.R.P.No.354/2000 -:4:- Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased PW1- the injured. He shall deposit the compensation amount before the trial court within one month from today for disbursement of the same to the legal heirs of deceased PW1. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 26 th day of June 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj