IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 711 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.53/2008 OF 1V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM CC.1405/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- THOMAS SHIBU, S/O.JOHN PADAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNUMPURAM KARA YATHEEMGANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN HIGH COURT OF KERALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 711 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 26-02-2009 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.1405 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M. II, Ernakulam, for offences punishable under Sections.448, 341 and 323 I.P.C, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offences. It was happened due to the enmity towards her for not granting permission to take water connection through the property of P.W.1. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 5-2-2001, the criminally trespassed into the house of P.W.1 (Susheela) at Vadakke kunnumpuram in Edappally North and after closing the door of the hall he caught hold of P.W.1 and wrongly restrained her and fisted her on the neck and face causing hurt. Cr. R.P. 711 of 2009 -:2:- 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 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4 . 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 15-12-2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Secs. 448 and 323 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. From out of the fine amount a Cr. R.P. 711 of 2009 -:3:- sum of Rs. 750 was directed to be paid to P.W.1. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court , Ernakulam the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 8/07/2008 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 case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for Cr. R.P. 711 of 2009 -:4:- the said conviction. I am of the view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Sec. 448 I.P.C. he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For his conviction under Sec. 341 I.P.C. he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. For his conviction under Sec. 323 I.P.C. he is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to the injured P.W.1. The petitioner is given two month's time to deposit the fine amount as well as compensation before the trial court. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009. V.Ramkumar, Judge. Cr. R.P. 711 of 2009 -:5:- ani. V. Ramkumar, Judge. Cr. R.P. 711 of 2009 -:6:- Cr. R.P. 711 of 2009 -:7:-