IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3143 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.393/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CC.132/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ, 32 YEARS, S/O.THANKAN, VALIVADAK- KETHIL (KAREELATHARAYIL), VENMONEY PADINJARUBHAGAM MURI, VEMMONY VILLAGE CHENGANNUR. 2. PRASAD, 38 YEARS, S/O.THANKAN, VALIVADAKKETHIL,(KAREELATHARAYIL) VENMONEY PADINJARUBHAGAM MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. 3. PRADEEP @ OMANAKUTTAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. THANKAN, VALIVADAKKETHIL,(KAREELATHARAYIL) VENMONEY PADINJARUBHAGAM MURI, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, VENMONY POLICE STATION. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ...................................... Crl.R.P. No. 3143 of 2008 ....................................... Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 132 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Chengannur for offences punishable under Sections 447, 294 (b) and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 15.04.2003, at about 10 p.m., the four accused persons, out of their previous enemity towards PWs 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to PWs 1 and 2, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of house of PW1 situated in Venmony muri of Venmony panchayat. They abused PW1 in obscene language and when PW2, the brother of PW1 came out of the house, A1 stabbed PW1 on his forehead with a sword-stick. A2 beat him on the back with the sword CRL.R.P. NO. 3143/2008 :2: stick. A3 beat on the shoulder of PW2 with an iron rod. A1 inflicted an injury on the forehead of PW1 with the sword stick. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 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 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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 02.08.2006 acquitted the 4th accused of all the offences, but convicted A1 to A3 of the offences punishable under Sections CRL.R.P. NO. 3143/2008 :3: 447 and 294(b) IPC. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and for the conviction under Section 447 IPC, each of the petitioners was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 393 of 2006 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Mavelikkara, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 11.02.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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. CRL.R.P. NO. 3143/2008 :4: 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve 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 their conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. For their conviction under Section 447 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2000/- as indicated hereinbelow. From out of the fine amount as well as compensation amount a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be paid to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C and a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as CRL.R.P. NO. 3143/2008 :5: compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The compensation ordered under Section 447 IPC shall be paid in equal shares to PWs 1 and 2, the injured. The petitioners are given 45 days' time to deposit the compensation amount. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv