IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1092 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.95/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK-I, THRISSUR CC.910/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 ----------------------------------------------------- V.K.MANI, S/O KRISHNAN, VALA VEEDU, AMBEDKAR COLONY, ORUMANAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 512. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ======================= Crl.R.P. No. 1092 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 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. 910 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him and the 1st accused for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 05.09.2000 at about 11 a.m due to previous enemity towards PW1 in Orumanayoor Villiams Centre the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained PW1 and A1 hit him on the forehead with a stone causing a bleeding injury and A2 beat PW1 with bare hands causing pain. CRL.R.P.NO. 1092/2008 : 2: 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 six witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked four documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and one material object 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 judgment dated 31.01.2005 convicted the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 323 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner CRL.R.P.NO. 1092/2008 : 3: before the Addl. Sessions Court (Adhoc), Fast Track-I, Thrissur the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 25.01.2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 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 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is CRL.R.P.NO. 1092/2008 : 4: set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2000/- shall be paid as compensation payable to PW1 who is stated to be no more now. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount before the trial court within two months' from today for disbursement to the legal heirs of deceased PW1. The petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 03.06.2008 for receiving the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge rv CRL.R.P.NO. 1092/2008 : 5: