IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2712 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.216/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM CC.798/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ BABU, S/O.CHELLAPPA PANIKKAR, SHANOJ BHAVAN, UDIYANPARA, THATHIYOOR DESOM, PERUMKADAVILA VILLAGE, MANJAVILAKAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA SRI.P.ANUROOP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------- STATE-REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (C.C NO.798 OF 2000 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 2712 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008. O R D E R Heard both sides. 2. The revision petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 798 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offences. 3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 06.09.2000, at about 12 noon, out of previous enemity, the accused picked up quarrel with the wife of PW1. When PW1 intervened, the accused inflicted a cut injury on the left side of the head of PW1 with a chopper causing a cutting injury on the right parietal wall of the skull of PW1 close to midline 7x2x1 c.m and injuries on his left shoulder and left elbow. 4. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned CRL.R.P. NO. 2712/2008 : 2: offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as PWs 1 to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 5. 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. 6. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 05.05.2004 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 216 of 2004 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram as per judgment dated 17.06.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. CRL.R.P. NO. 2712/2008 : 3: 7. 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. 8. 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 hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to PW1, the injured. On failure to pay the compensation, the CRL.R.P. NO. 2712/2008 : 4: petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The petitioner is given two months time to deposit the compensation 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 20th day of August, 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv