IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 74 of 2003() ---------------------------- C.C.NO.72/1993 OF Chief Judicial Magistrate, PATHANAMTHITTA CRL.APPEAL NO.84 OF 1994 OF THE ADDL.DISTRICTCOURT, PATHANAMTHITTA REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS 1 & 3/ACCUSED 1 & 3: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHACKO THOMAS, AGED 77, S/O. CHACKO, MELEDATHU HOUSE, KOTTATHUR P.O., AYROOR VILLAGE. 2. MATHAI MATHAI, AGED 76, S/O. MATHAI, KALLAR HOUSE, KOTTATHUR P.O., AYROOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. OMANA AMMA, W/O. MOHANAN PILLAI, PARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTATHUR P.O., AYROOR VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE FOR R.1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.74 of 2003 =================== Dated: 25.08.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec.397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No.72 of 1993 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 326 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the aforesaid offences. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/ complainant. 3. The case originated out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein namely Omana Amma who was aged 39 years on the date of occurrence. 4. What is unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence is the following:- The occurrence took place at a place called Ayirur in Ranny taluk of Pathanamthitta district. PW1, Omana Amma then aged 39 years, her husband PW2 and her daughter PW4 were residing at Ayirur. It is a rocky area. There is a small stream near her Crl.R.P.No.74/2003 -:2:- house. On 21.04.1993 at about 9 P.M., PW1 went out of her house for taking bath in the nearby stream as usual. After reaching the stream, when she took her outer clothes, A1 went there and embraced her and caught hold of her left breast. When she screamed, A1 caught hold of her breast and tore her blouse. A2 and A3 who were in his company asked her to yield to the wishes of A1 and threatened to do away with her. A3 flashed the torch at her and A2 cut her with a chopper over her elbow. She fell down with a screech. Her husband and daughter reached to the scene and on seeing them the randy intruders ran away. PW1 had previous acquaintance with the accused and she could identify them in the kerosene lamp which was placed by her near the bathing place. When PWs.2 and 4 came running, she narrated the occurrence to them. On their way home all of them saw the 3 accused persons running away from there. PW1 was first taken to Government Hospital, Kozhenchery. Since the casualty doctor was not there, her husband PW2 was asked to take her to some other hospital. Since PW1 belongs to Alappuzha, she was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha by way of convenience. While going to hospital PW2 dropped in at Koyippuram Police Station and Crl.R.P.No.74/2003 -:3:- reported the incident. The Police told him to take PW1 to the hospital and promised to go to the hospital for recording the statement of the injured. However, the Police failed to reach the hospital. PW3 who was a lecturer in Surgery in the Alleppey Medical College treated PW1. PW1 had an oblique incised wound cutting the underlying muscle and cortex of bone with infection. She was discharged from the hospital on 11.5.93. 5. This in short is the prosecution case which has been proved by the testimonies of Pws.1 to 4. The trial judge who has the unique advantage of seeing and assessing the credibility of the witnesses had no difficulty in accepting the testimonies of Pws.1 to 4. 6. Eventhough 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. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question Crl.R.P.No.74/2003 -:4:- regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Considering the fact that A1 was aged 69 years and A3 was aged 68 years on the date of occurrence and they are now octogenarians, I am inclined to treat the petitioners with leniency in sentence. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead each of them is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand) as compensation to PW1, the injured. The petitioners are given 45 days' time from today to deposit the compensation amount failing which the defaulting petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 25 th day of August, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.74/2003 -:5:-