IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 877 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.210/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA CC.31/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- --------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.CHINNARAMAN, PUTHUCHOLA VEEDU, CHENAMALA COLONY, THURKI BAZAR, KAPETTA, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------- STATE - S.I. OF POLICE, KALPETTA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-3-2009 , THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. 877 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.31/2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, Wayanad for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 294(b) IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for offences punishable under Section 324 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as follows:- De facto complainant who was examined as PW1 (Ammu) is the wife of the revision petitioner/accused. There is some difference of opinion between the husband and wife. Maintenance was given to her and her children. On 18-7-2002 at about 4.30 p.m. the revision petitioner beat PW1 with a wooden reaper on the left side of her face resulting in she sustaining an injury on the face. He also abused her in obscene words. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the Crl.R.P. 877/09 -2- aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined six witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked Exts. P1 to P4 and 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 11-10-2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months and acquitted under section 294(b) IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A. No.210/06 before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Kalpetta, the Addl. Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 27-12- 2008, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. Crl.R.P. 877/09 -3- 6. Even though 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 sentence of fine imposed and the default sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.2,000/- out of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, pursuant to the order of the lower appellate court and that the said amount will work out to 56 days of default sentence and he has already undergone 74 days of simple imprisonment by way of default and hence, a total of 113 days, out of total default sentence 270 days. If that be so, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the default sentence of 74 days already undergone by him and 56 days which is equivalent to sum of Rs.2,000/- deposited by him may be treated as the default sentence and with regard to the balance period Crl.R.P. 877/09 -4- of 140 days, he may be exempted from undergoing the imprisonment by way of default. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accede to the above prayer. The courts below have been unduly lenient in not awarding any substantive sentence of imprisonment on the revision petitioner. For the bodily injury inflicted by him on his wife, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for nine months. The request now made is to avoid payment of the balance fine amount which has been ordered to be paid as compensation to his wife/ de facto complainant. I am not inclined to grant any remission in the matter of default sentence. 10. In the result, this revision is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence imposed by the courts below. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.