IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1032 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.711/2007 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.135/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOTHAMANGALAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------- VARGHESE, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, PARANNAMELEL HOUSE, PANICHAYAM KARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. MR. S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 71 OF 1999 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION) ADV. MR. C.M. NAZAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1032 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C., the revision petitioner who was the sole accused in C.C. No. 135 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the aforesaid offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: Out of the enemity towards the de facto complainant PW2, Soniya (who is none other than the daughter of the elder brother of the accused) arising out of the civil dispute between the parties, on 09.02.1999, at 8.30 p.m., the accused criminally trespassed into the foyer of the residential house bearing No. VIII/34 of Kothamangalam Municipality and bet PW2 by means of a rubber stem and Crl.R.P. No. 1032/2010 -:2:- thereby voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 by causing contusion and swelling on the head. The accused has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 IPC. 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 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and a rubber stem as 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 Crl.R.P. No. 1032/2010 -:3:- judgment dated 04.10.2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months under Section 447 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 324 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 711 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam the learned II Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 05.12.2009 confirmed the conviction entered but modified the sentence reducing the imprisonment granted under Section 324 IPC to three months and imposing a fine of Rs.7,500/- with a default sentence. The sentence imposed under Section 447 IPC was confirmed. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the Crl.R.P. No. 1032/2010 -:4:- 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for the conviction under Section 447 IPC, the revision petitioner 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 the conviction under Crl.R.P. No. 1032/2010 -:5:- Section 324 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) of which Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to PW2, the injured and Rs.2000/- shall be paid to the State. The petitioner is given one month's time from today to deposit the fine and compensation amount. In case the compensation amount is not deposited within the above time frame, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 1032/2010 -:6:-