IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2939 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.115/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM CC.256/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- STANLEY JOHN @ BABU, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MANNATHIPPARA ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, VELLARADA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ...................................... Crl.R.P. No. 2939 of 2008 ....................................... Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C. No. 256 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 11.05.1993, at about 6.30 p.m., out of their enemity towards PW1, the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt to PW1, A1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by cutting on his left shoulder, right little finger and on the back of his head with a chopper and when PW2, the son of PW1 interfered, A2 cut him also on his left little finger and inflicted injury and A3 hit PW3 on the back with the blunt end of the chopper and kicked on her belly. CRL.R.P. NO. 2939/2008 :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 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and got marked 7 documents as Exts. P1 to P7. 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 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 15.03.2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 115 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Fast Track-I, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, CRL.R.P. NO. 2939/2008 :3: Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 16.08.2007 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and ordered further that the fine of Rs.1000/- imposed under Section 323 IPC shall be given to PW1 as compensation. 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed CRL.R.P. NO. 2939/2008 :4: hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 324 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- and Rs.1000/- and Rs.1000/- respectively to PWs 1 to 3 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On failure to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC is confirmed. However, the direction to pay the fine amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation to PW1 is dislodged. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial court within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv