IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3431 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.274/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM CC.336/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------ 1. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR @ MADHU @ GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR @ SREEDHARAN NAIR KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, NEAR KALATHUKAL, KALONGU, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE. 2. SAJIKUMAR @ SAJI, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN SAJI BHAVAN, MANIKANDESWARAM, PEROORKADA MURI, PEROORKADA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM + PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3431 of 2008 = == = = = = = = = = = == Dated: 05.03.2009 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in C.C.No.336 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Nedumangad for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.PC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 24.01.2001 at about 4.45 p.m., the two accused persons in prosecution of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to PW2, went to the residence of PW2 in a car bearing Reg.No.KL-01- G-8870. Under the pretext that they had something to tell PW2, they took PW2 to Irayankode from where they gave a blow on the right side of the right eye of PW2 with some object and also beat PW2 on various parts of his body with firewood. A1 drove the aforesaid car and dashed against PW2 who was thrown out and he sustained Crl.R.P.No.3431/09 -:2:- injuries. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against them 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 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 31.03.2005 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each. The fine amount was directed to Crl.R.P.No.3431/09 -:3:- be paid to PW2 as compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl.Appeal No.274/2005, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 17.06.08, confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision. 6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioners, 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 petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the Crl.R.P.No.3431/09 -:4:- view that interests justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside and instead, for their conviction under Section 324 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a sum of Rs.7500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as compensation payable to PW2, the injured who is now reported to be dead. The revision petitioners are directed to deposit the total compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) before the trial court within 45 days from today. The trial court shall disburse the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased PW2. On failure to deposit the compensation as aforesaid the defaulting accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.3431/09 -:5:-