IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2587 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.297/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.597/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAKKEER, S/O.MEERANNAN, PARACKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BASHEER HASSAN, S/O.HASSAN RAWTHER, PUTHUPARAMBIL,P.O., BOX NO.III, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2587 of 2008 =================== Dated: 5.08.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C. No.597 of 1999 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Kanjirappilly for offences punishable under Sections 452,427,324 and 323 read with 34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below for offences punishable under Sections 452,323 and 324 read with 34 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: The complainant is a tenant of the 2nd accused in respect of a room bearing No.KP 668/VIII. When accused Nos.1 and 2 who are brothers attempted to forcibly evict the complainant from the premises, the latter filed a suit as O.S.No.255/96 before the Musiff's Court, Kanjirappilly. That suit was decreed. It was out of the enmity arising from the said litigation that on 10.11.98 at about 3.15 p.m., while the complainant was carrying out certain repairs to the room, the two accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the complainant armed with stones Crl.R.P.No.2587/08 -:2:- and iron rode resulting in the complainant sustaining injuries to his hands and other parts of the body. 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 5 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked 3 documents as Exts. P1 to P3. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused 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. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 12.4.2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 452.I.P.C. and for the conviction under Section 452 IPC he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. For the conviction under Section 323 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple Crl.R.P.No.2587/08 -:3:- imprisonment for 5 days. For the conviction under Section 324 IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months and to pay fine of Rs.1500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court as Crl.Appeal No.297 of 2007, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 30.6.08 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 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 the interests of justice will Crl.R.P.No.2587/08 -:4:- be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the conviction under Section 324 IPC is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) to PW1, the injured. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation before the trial court within one month from today. The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner with regard to the conviction under Sections 323 is also set aside. However, the fine portion of the said sentence shall remain in tact. With regard to the conviction under Section 452 IPC, the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2587/08 -:5:-