IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 251 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.569/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR CRA.33/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPAN, S/O.VASU, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, 17TH STARE, VALAPPAD. 2. MANI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ELAMKOTT HOUSE, PERINJANAM, KAIPAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P. SRI.NELSON J.MANAYIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.251 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. The revision petitioners, who were accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.569 of 1999 on the file of J.F.C.M, Kodungallur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 326 read with 149 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the aforesaid offences by the courts below. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 1/02/1999, at about 11.30 P.M., the five accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1, Suresh and in furtherance of their common object, trespassed into the house of the PW1. A3 caused head injury to PW1 by hitting him with an iron rod. A1 and A2 attacked PW1 with heavy objects covered in cloths causing grievous hurt to PW1. The assault on PW1 was due to the wrong belief entertained by the accused that it was on account of PW1 that the brother-in-law of PW1 had to return Crl.R.P.No.251 of 2008 2 from abroad. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW14 and 13 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P13 and nine material objects were marked as M.Os 1 to 9. Out of the five accused persons A2 was absconding and A1 and A3 to A5 faced the trial. 4. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 16.12.03, acquitted accused Nos.4 and 5 but convicted accused 1 and 3 (the revision petitioners herein) of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 452 IPC. A1 and A3 were, however, acquitted them of the rest of the offences. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rupees two thousand and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. For conviction under Section 326 IPC, each of the revision petitioners was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. two thousand and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For the conviction under Section 452 IPC, each of the revision Crl.R.P.No.251 of 2008 3 petitioners was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rupees one thousand and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. There was no direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. With the result that the substantive sentence imposed on the revision petitioner will have to run consecutively. 5. Aggrieved by the said conviction entered and sentence passed by the trial court, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Court Fast Track Court No.II(Adhoc), Thrissur as Crl.A.No.33/2004. The learned Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 10.01.08 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and sentence passed by the trial court. Hence this revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioners on various grounds, in as much as the conviction has been entered by the courts below after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the said conviction entered against the revision petitioners. Hence the Crl.R.P.No.251 of 2008 4 conviction recorded against the revision petitioners is hereby confirmed. 7. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are cousins and the wife of the de facto complainant is the niece of the 1st accused. The occurrence itself took place on account of some misunderstanding. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for their conviction under Sections 324, 326 and 452 IPC. I am of view that an appropriate compensation shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners by the courts below is set aside. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. For the conviction under Section 326 IPC, each of the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple Crl.R.P.No.251 of 2008 5 imprisonment for three months. For the conviction under Section 452 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in equal shares shall be paid to PW1- the injured by way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj