IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 695 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.618/2008 OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (ADHOC-III), N.PARAVUR C.C.NO.367/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM, N.PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAKASAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.CHATHAN, KARUMBANTHODU HOUSE,KODUVAZHANGA KARA, ALANGADU VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.532 OF 2000 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No. 695 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated:25.02.2010 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C. No.367 on the file of the J.F.C.M, North Paravur for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 324 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: Due to previous enmity towards PW1 as he had questioned the accused (husband and wife) in respect of an earlier incident in which the daughter of PW1 was teased by them, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a brick used as a deadly weapon in furtherance of their common intention. The accused have thereby committed Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010 -:2:- the aforesaid offence. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and a brick as MOI. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 22.07.2008 convicted the 2nd accused of the offence punishable 352 IPC but acquitted her of the offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 read with Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010 -:3:- 34 IPC. The revision petitioner was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 324 IPC and convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by the accused before the Sessions Court as Crl.Appeal No.618 of 2008 before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc- III), N. Paravur, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 31.12.2009 confirmed the conviction entered but modified the sentence by reducing the imprisonment to six months. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this Revision. 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 Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010 -:4:- 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 set aside and instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- within one month from today. On default to pay the fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) shall be paid to PW1/injured as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010 -:5:- In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj