IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 804 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.195/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.554/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: --------------------- 1. BENNY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHOONDIYANICKAL, ASRAMAM BHAGAM, MOOLAMATTOM. 2. JOY, S/O.THOMAS, PUTHUMANAPPARAYIL HOUSE, ANCHIRI P.O., ALAKODE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY C.I. OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.804 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Revision petitioners/A1 and A2 faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the Code’). 3. Case is that on 2.8.1995 at about 7.20 a.m. PWs 1 to 3 had boarded bus in which revision petitioner No.1 was the conductor at Thodupuzha in order to go to Ettumanoor where PWs 1 to 3 were studying in the ITC. There was a wordy altercation between the students and revision petitioner No.1 pertaining to the students traveling on concession rate. Revision petitioners assaulted PWs 1 and 2. It is the further case that revision petitioner No.1 hit PW1 with his bag. Revision petitioners also used obscene words. Learned magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty under Section 323 of the Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months while they were acquitted of other charges. Appeal preferred by them was dismissed. Hence this revision. Crl.R.P.No.804/2001 2 4. Learned counsel for revision petitioners contended that evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is contrary to each other and that PW6 who had conducted investigation had not cited any of the passengers in the bus as witness. It is also pointed out by the counsel that PW1 had not even given the name of the assailants or any mark for their identification. 5. According to PW1, he was travelling in the bus. PWs 1 to 3 have given evidence regarding the alleged incident. They deposed that there was wordy altercation between the students and the revision petitioners. PW4 is an attestor to Ext.P2, scene mahazar. PW5 examined PWs 1 and 2 and issued Exts.P2 and P4, certificates. It is clear from Ext.P2 that PW1 had bleeding from nose and contusion on the back of chest. PWs 1 and 2 had pain on the back of chest. It is proved by the evidence on record that revision petitioners assaulted PWs 1 and 2. In that circumstance, failure of PW1 to state any mark of identification is not in any way fatal. According to the revision petitioners, students had misbehaved to some women passengers in the bus and that was questioned by them which resulted in the complaint. That, there was bleeding from the nose of PW1 and he had contusion on the back of chest is clear from Ext.P2. I have gone through the evidence and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. Crl.R.P.No.804/2001 3 6. So far as sentence is concerned, considering the nature of injuries which I have stated and that the incident was not pre-calculated and happened on the spur of the moment and also taking into account the fact that more than 13 years have elapsed , I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till the rising of court is sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and at the same time, revision petitioners have to compensate PWs 1 and 2 for the injury caused to them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, revision petitioners shall deposit in the trial court compensation of Rs.2,000/- each. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines:- i. Substantive sentence awarded to the revision petitioners under Section 323 of the Code is modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of court. ii. Revision petitioners are directed to deposit in the trial court Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each as compensation within two months from this day failing which, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Out of compensation if realised, Rs.2,500/- shall be given to PW1 and Rs.1,500/- shall be given to PW2 as compensation. Crl.R.P.No.804/2001 4 iii. Revision petitioners shall surrender in the trial court on 13.2.2009 to receive the sentence. iv. Bail bonds are cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.3737 of 2001 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.804/2001 5 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.804 of 2001 ORDER 4th December, 2008