IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 846 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.78/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM CC.773/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------ ANTONY ALIAS ANTHONY, S/O. BENEDICT, PUNNAVILAKOM (A/IX 338), ANCHUTHENGU P.O., KADAKKAVOOR VILALGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.846 of 2008 =================== Dated: 10.04.2008 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.733 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Varkala for offences punishable under Sections 341,323,354 and 506(ii) IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 354 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 11.8.02 at about 12 noon, the accused due to his previous enmity towards PW1 namely Maria Koshy, wrongfully restrained her and fisted 3 to 4 times on her back and on her chin and pushed her down to the ground causing pain on both her buttocks. On hearing the screams of PW1, PW2 namely Silva, a neighbour came running. She was also fisted on her right shoulder by the accused who threatened her that he would kill her and put her in fear of death. The accused had in that process, outraged the modesty of PW1 and PW2. He has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,354 and 506(ii) IPC. Cr.R.P.No.846 of 2008 -: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 seven witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. 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 examined two witnesses as PWs.1 and 2. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 11.01.05 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections341 and 506(ii) I.P.C. but convicted him of the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 354 IPC. For the conviction under Section 323 IPC the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the conviction under 354 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the lower Cr.R.P.No.846 of 2008 -:3:- appellate court as per judgment dated 6.07.07 acquitted the revision petitioners of the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC, but confirmed the conviction entered and reduced the the sentence under Section 323 IPC to simple imprisonment for two months. 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Section 323 IPC is set aside and Cr.R.P.No.846 of 2008 -:4:- instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to PW1 and 1000/-(Rupees thousand only) to PW2 by way of compensation under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C and on default to pay the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. He shall deposit the compensation amount before the trial court within 45 days from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj