IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 94 of 2011() ---------------------------- CRA.440/2009 ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM CC.959/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------- RAJEEV, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 26, KANDATHITHAZHATHU, CHERANELLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD SRI.K.V.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2011 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 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.959/2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections323 and 294(b) IPC . 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 7.2.2003 at 8.15 pm while PW1 was on service in his bus bearing registration No.KL7 AK 157 at the Cheranellur-Edappally level cross, the accused on account of his previous enmity towards PW1 assaulted him and also abused him in filthy language. The accused has thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) 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 4 Crl.R.P.No.94/2011 -:2:- witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 23.06.2009 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under section 323 IPC and for six months under Section 294(b) IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Addl.Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 13.08.2010 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC but confirmed the conviction entered against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 323 and reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one month and directed him to pay Crl.R.P.No.94/2011 -:3:- a fine of `1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only). Hence, 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 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 323 IPC, the two days' imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner will suffice, besides a sum of `5,000/- (Rupees five Crl.R.P.No.94/2011 -:4:- thousand only) to PWI/ injured as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C The petitioner is given one month's time to deposit the compensation, failing which he shall undergo default sentence by way of simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall be released from prison forthwith unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection with any other case against him. His release shall, however, be subject to his liability to pay the compensation as above. Dated this the 11 th day of January, 2011. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj