IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2852 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA. NO. 21 OF 2004 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK III), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C. NO. 757 OF 1999 OF J.F.C.M. I, NEYYATTINKARA REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- --------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR @ SURESH (HONDA SURESH), S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, THALANIRA NJATTADI,NEAR SALVATION ARMY CHURCH, CHAIKKOTTUKONAM, MARUTHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 2852 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 26-08-2008 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.757 of 1999 on the file of J.F.C.M.I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 332 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently against him for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 332 I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 25-10-1999 while P.W.3 was working as gate keeper at the Kannankuzhy Railway gate, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came there in an autorickshaw at about 10.40 p.m. The railway gate was closed for passage of a goods train. The accused insisted P.W.3 to open the gate. Since P.W.3 did not accede to the demand of the accused, the accused physically assaulted P.W. 3 in the courtyard of the gangroom on the northern side of the railway line. A1 inflicted a blow on the left shoulder of P.W.3. A2 caught hold of the neck of P.W.3. A3 and A4 inflicted blows on his back and kicked on his abdomen. Crl.R.P. 2852 of 2008 -:2:- The accused persons prevented P.W.3 from discharging his official duties as a public servant. The accused also damaged two signal lights kept in the gangroom and thereby caused loss of Rs. 1,000/- to the railways. 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 10, got marked 9 documents as Exts. P1 to P9 and three material objects were also marked as MOs 1 to 3. 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 them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 20-12-2003 acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4 but convicted the revision petitioner the first accused of offences punishable under Sections 332 and 447 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer Crl.R.P. 2852 of 2008 -:3:- simple imprisonment for two months under Sec. 332 I.P.C. For his conviction under Sec. 447 I.P.C. he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl.Appeal 21 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court - III) Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 12-2-2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner. 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 Crl.R.P. 2852 of 2008 -:4:- view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Sec. 332 I.P.C. the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. For his conviction under Sec. 447 I.P.C. the revision petitioner is sentenced to under imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. From and out of the fine as and when realised a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid to P.W.3 the injured by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. Another sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) shall be deposited before the trial Court for payment to the Indian Railways for the loss caused to the signal lights at Kannankuzhi railway gate. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. Crl.R.P. 2852 of 2008 -:5:-