IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 619 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.186/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS FAST TRACK COURT-II (ADHOC), THRISSUR SC.238/2003 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SAJEEVAN, S/O. BALAN, THERUVIL PADINJATTEDATH HOUSE, ELTHURUTH, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 619 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner has been concurrently convicted under Section 326 and 308 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 308 IPC with a direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. No compensation was awarded to PW2, the victim. 2. The case of the prosecution as unravelled by the oral and documentary evidence in the case is the following:- On 10.01.2003 at about 3 p.m due to the enemity towards PW2 for having given evidence against the accused who was the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused wrongfully restrained PW2 and beat him with an iron road on his left hand, right ankle and other places resulting in PW2 sustaining the following injuries:- CRL.R.P.NO. 619 of 2008 : 2: 1. Abrasion over left knee 3x2 cm. 2. Contusion over left supra patellar region of knee 5x3 3. Small lacerated wound over the right eye brow. 4. Swelling and deformity of left wrist with comminuted distal radial fracture. 5. Contusion of right pronto paratial region 10x5 cm. 6. Fracture of cuboid bone of right foot. 3. On the side of the prosecution 10 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 10 and 6 documents were got marked as Exts.P1 to P6 and an iron rod was marked as MO1. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 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. 4. The learned trial judge namely Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him as above. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 186/2005 before the CRL.R.P.NO. 619 of 2008 : 3: Sessions Court, Thrissur, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-II, Thrissur as per judgment dated 06.12.2007 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence this revision. 5. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner, in as much as the said conviction has been recorded 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 conviction recorded against the petitioner. The said conviction is accordingly confirmed. 6. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner/accused and the complainant are neighbours and it was impelled by the enemity arising out of the belief of the accused that the de facto complainant had deposed against him in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque that the accused set upon the complainant (PW2) and inflicted the above injuries. In as much as the parties have since CRL.R.P.NO. 619 of 2008 : 4: settled the matter and also since I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the acts attributed to him, interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and directing the petitioner to compensate PW2, the victim. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside. Instead, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court for the conviction under Sections 326 and 308 IPC. For the conviction under Section 326 IPC, he shall pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. For the conviction under Section 308 IPC, he shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is given two months time from today to deposit the compensation amount payable to PW2. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P.NO. 619 of 2008 : 5: