IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 409 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.86/2003 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.50/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- RAVI @ NALAN, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU AGED 44 YEARS, ARUN VILASAM, GEORGE STREET NADUTHERI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.409 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.50 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur for offences punishable under Sections 341 IPC and 324 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 11.12.1997 at 2 p.m., while PWs 1 and 2 were returning to their house with the grass collected by them, the accused wrongfully restrained them and beat them with a stick on the head of PW1 and on the body of PW2. The assault was as on account of the pre-existing boundary dispute between the parties. 3. On the side of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW7 and six documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P6. Crl.R.P.No.409 of 2008 2 4. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to him 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 5.2.03 found the revision petitioner guilty of offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 324 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction entered and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the II Addl.Sessions Court, Kollam as Crl.A.No.86/2003. The learned Judge as per judgment dated 7.9.07 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the accused. Hence this revision. 7. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner on various grounds, in as much as the conviction has been entered by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Crl.R.P.No.409 of 2008 3 Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction entered against the revision petitioner. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 8. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner . It is true that both the injured persons namely PWs 1 and 2 are women. But it is the admitted case that there was pre-existing boundary dispute between the parties and it was the said dispute which impelled the accused to assault the two women. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration. I am of the view that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of Court and an appropriate compensation shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead, he is directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation to PW1 and 2000/- (Rupees two thounsand only) to PW2 under Section 357(3) Crl.R.P.No.409 of 2008 4 Cr.P.C. for the conviction under Section 324 IPC. For his conviction under Section 341 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) and Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) respectively as compensation to PWs 1 to 2. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj