IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1910 of 2008() ------------------------------ CA.613/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY CC.171/2002 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ ACCUSED ------------------------------------ M.GANGADHARAN, S/O.BALAN NAMBIAR, AGED 48 YEARS, MOOVARATH VEETIL, KADIRUR AMSOM, DIAMOND MUKKU, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. NO. 1910 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 13-06-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No. 171 of 2002on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery for offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the above offences. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 24-3-2002 at about 7 a.m. the accused out of his enmity towards his mother P.W.1, for taking a coconut from the coconut plucked and collected by him, trespassed into the varandha of the house where P.W.1 was residing and wrongfully restrained her and voluntarily caused hurt to her by beating her with the stalk of a coconut leaf on her chin and right shoulder. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 4witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 and one material object as MO.1. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the Crl. R.P. No. 1910 of 2008 -:2:- 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. 5. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated.29-10-2002 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each of the offences. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court , Thalasserry, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated, 15th January 2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough 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. 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 Crl. R.P. No. 1910 of 2008 -:3:- 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 under Sec. 448 I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to P.W.1, the injured. For the conviction under Sec. 323 I.P.C. the petitioner shall pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 50 days. The compensation shall be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court within one month from today failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month by way of default sentence. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl. R.P. No. 1910 of 2008 -:4:-