IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 933 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.280/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY CC.628/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THEKKEKUTTU HOUSE, PUTHUR, ETTUKUDUKKA P.O., KARIVELLUR VIA., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE, THROUGH S.I. OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 933 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 17-03-2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C. No. 628 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Payyannur for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 20-10-1997 at about 8.30 p.m. at Puthur in Peralam amsom in the courtyard of P.W.1's house, the two accused persons in prosecution of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to P.W.1 committed criminal trespass and A1 hit P.W.1 on his head with a reaper and A2 struck P.W.1 on the hands and back with a stick. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. Crl.R.P. No. 933 of 2009 -: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 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked five documents as Exts. P1 to P7. 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 24 th March 2000 found both the accured guilty of offences and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Sec. 447 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 324 I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the accused persons before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, as Crl.Appeal No. 280 of 2003 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 30-09-2009 acquitted the Crl.R.P. No. 933 of 2009 -:3:- 2 nd accused but confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the first accused/revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 447 I.P.C. With regard to the conviction under Sec. 324 the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner was modified by reducing the same to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Crl.R.P. No. 933 of 2009 -:4:- Accordingly, for his conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as compensation payable to P.W.1, the injured. On default to pay the compensation, the revision petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. For his conviction under Sec. 447 I.P.C. the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to P.W.1 the injured. On default to pay the compensation he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner is given 45 days' time to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 17th day of March 2009. Sd/- V.Ramkumar, Judge. /true copy/ ani. Crl.R.P. No. 933 of 2009 -:5:-