IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 995 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.459/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.5/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SATHEENDRAN, S/O.RAJAPPAN, KARIMBINKATTIL VEETTIL, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No. 995 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No.5 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Haripad for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 11 p.m, on 6.12.2000, the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a stick, while he was riding on his scooter through the public road near S.N.Junction adjacent to the National Highway in Karuvatta village. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW5 and five documents were got marked as Exts.P1 to P5. 4. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. Crl.R.P.No.995 of 2008 2 5. The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 21.10.03, found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months. His appeal before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara was also not successful. Hence this revision. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction recorded against the revision petitioner 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 petitioner. The conviction 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 the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration. I am of the view that an appropriate fine and compensation out of the same over and above the 15 days of imprisonment has already been Crl.R.P.No.995 of 2008 3 undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is altered to limit the imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only), out of which a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from today, failing which the revision petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days, by way of default sentence. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj