IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1633 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.274/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.455/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ MOHANAN, S/O. SRIDHARAN, KODIVECHAVILA VEEDU, ATTAKULAM, CHITTATHINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRABABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 1633 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 26-05-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the Ist accused in C.C. No.455 of 1996 on the file of the J.F.C.M.I, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections.341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 23-6- 1995 at about 9 a.m. due to the previous enmity towards P.W.1 and in furtherance of the common intention to voluntarily cause injuries to P.Ws 1 to 4 the two accused persons wrongfully restrained P.W.1 and struck her and Pws 2 to 4 with their hands and an iron pipe, a dangerous weapon, and the accused have thereby committed offences punishable under Sections.341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the Crl.R.P. No. 1633 of 2008 -:2:- 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 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8. On the side of the defence Exts. D1 to D4 were got marked. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the revision petitioner 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 except marking Exts. D1 to D4. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 09-06-2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for three months under Sec. 323 I.P.C. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court the lowr appellate court as per judgment dated 30- 1-2008 confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. to simple imprisonment for one month and under Sec. 324 I.P.C. to simple imprisonment for three months. Hence this revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision Crl.R.P. No. 1633 of 2008 -:3:- 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. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under Sec. 324 I.P.C. From and out of the fine as and when realised a sum of Rs. 2000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 and Rs. 1000/- each shall be paid to Pws 2 to 4 Crl.R.P. No. 1633 of 2008 -:4:- by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. 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. ani.