IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1259 of 2001(C) ------------------------------ CC.212/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR CRA.27/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- PAPPACHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, ENAYI HOUSE, KADUKULANGARA, AYYAMPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.JOY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.1259 of 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 O R D E R In this revision petition, the revision petitioner assails the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 324 I.P.C. The petitioner faces a concurrent sentence of R.I for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default he is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 3 months. An amount of Rs.2,500/- is directed to be paid to the defacto complainant/victim/PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner/accused (he is the sole accused in the crime) is that at 4.05 p.m on 20.11.1995 the accused, with an intention of voluntarily causing hurt to PW1 on account of their prior animosity, voluntarily caused hurt to him by cutting him with a chopper and thereby he sustained serious injuries, though not grievous legally. The alleged incident took place by the side of a public road when PW1 was riding his bicycle. He was stopped and attacked and 3 serious injuries were inflicted on him with M.O.1 chopper. Crl.R.P No.1259 of 2001 2 3. The accused denied the offence. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. M.O.1 and M.O.2 series were marked. 4. The accused took up a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. 5. Called upon to explain the nature of the challenge which the petitioner/accused wants to raise against the impugned concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner only submits that leniency may be shown on the question of sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now a person aged above 65 years. He has endured the trauma of this prosecution for the past about 1 ½ decades. He is willing to make amends. He shall adequately compensate the complainant. He may not be compelled to undergo any term of substantive imprisonment. He may be spared of a deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment. Appropriate enhanced direction for payment of compensation may be ordered, but the petitioner Crl.R.P No.1259 of 2001 3 may be saved of the trauma of incarceration in the evening of his life. The willingness of the petitioner to make amends appropriately and to compensate the victim may be taken into consideration, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have considered all the relevant aspects. I take note of the serious injuries suffered by the victim as revealed from Ext.P4 wound certificate. I take note of the passage of time as also the advanced age of the petitioner/accused. I take note of the offer made by the accused to adequately compensate the victim. In response to queries made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner after taking specific instructions on that aspect accepts that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victim. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the prayer to modify the sentence can be accepted. 7. In the result: a) This Crl.R.P is allowed in part; b) The verdict of guilty and conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 324 I.P.C are upheld; c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Crl.R.P No.1259 of 2001 4 courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo R.I for a period of 9 months. If the amount is realised, the entire amount shall be released to the defacto complainant/victim/PW1 immediately. 8. The petitioner shall have time till 17.08.2009 to appear before the learned Magistrate and to serve the modified sentence hereby imposed. The sentence shall not be executed till that date. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on or before that date. On deposit of the compensation amount, the same shall forthwith be released to the defacto complainant/victim/PW1 by the court below. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-