IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1194 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.177/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.1080/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED 2 TO 4:- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJENDRAN, SON OF RAGHAVA PANICKER AGED 37, CHAKKANATTU VEEDU, WARD NO.8, MARARIKULAM SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. RAJASEKHARA PANICKER, S/O.DAMODARA PANICKER, AGED 39, KURUPPARAMBU VEEDU, WARD NO.6, DO. 3. RAGHAVA PANICKER, S/O.GOVINDA PANICKER AGED 78 YEARS, CHAKKANATTU VEEDU, WARD NO.8, MARARIKULAM SOUTH, -DO-. BY ADV. MR. R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No. 1194 of 2010 =================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. O R D E R In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioners who were the accused in C.C. No.1080 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate- I, Alappuzha for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts below for the aforementioned offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 05.07.2005, at 9 p.m., in Ward No. 8 of Mararikulam South Panchayath, accused Nos. 1 to 4 out of their previous enemity towards PW1, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of Chakkanattu house and A1 wrongfully restrained PW1 and grabbed his cloth for 2-3 minutes and A2 and A3 grabbed PW1 and pushed him down and A4 struck him with a stick on his right shoulders below the right elbow and below the left knee whereby Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:2:- PW1 sustained hurt. The accused have thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them 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 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were 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 their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 17.03.2009 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences, but instead of pronouncing sentence on them at once, they were released on probation for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with a direction Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:3:- that each of the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to PW1 by way of compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Alappuzha as Crl. Appeal No. 177 of 2009. As per judgment dated 08.01.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-II, Alappuzha dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the release of the revision petitioners on probation with the direction to pay compensation. It is the said judgment which is assailed in this revision. 6. Even though 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. Since the revision petitioners were released on probation given by the trial court, they cannot be heard to say that the Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:4:- conviction recorded against them causes stigma to them. In the light of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, there will be no disqualification attaching to the said conviction. The order for compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act was also fully justified, having regard to the fact that the revision petitioners had voluntarily caused hurt to PW1, the injured. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order for probation or the order for compensation. This revision is accordingly dismissed. The revision petitioners are given one month's time from today to deposit the compensation amount and for executing the bond before the trial court. Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:5:-