IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 473 of 2008() --------------------------------- C.C. NO. 224/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, KANNUR. CRL.APPEAL NO. 336/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY. REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANTS 2 & 3/ACCSED 2 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.V. GANESH BABU, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, MADATHILVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTALI, PUZHATHI AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR-16. 2. M. PRAVEEN, S/O. CHANDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, MOOLIYIL HOUSE, KOTTALI, PUZHATHI AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR-16. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 473 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008. ORDER The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 224 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kannur, were charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kannur Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 447 and 506(ii) r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- On 24.11.2002 at about 2 p.m near the house of one Raman at Palangodanpara, the three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained PW1 who was travelling along with his children in a car bearing registration No. KL-10/K. 363. A1 dragged PW1 out and all the accused persons beat him and kicked him in the course of which PW1 lost his gold chain. 3. The trial court found A1 to A3 guilty of all the offences except the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced them to fine as well as imprisonment. On appeal preferred by them as Crl. Appeal No. 336/2005, the learned Additional Sessions judge, Thalassery confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence into one of fine only. Hence this revision. CRL.R.P.NO. 473/2008 : 2: 4. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assailed the conviction recorded against them, in as much as the said conviction has been entered against the revision petitioners after a careful evaluation of oral and documentary evidence in the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the same and I am not convinced that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below is faulty or unsustainable. The conviction is accordingly confirmed. 5. What now survives for consideration is the question of adequacy of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners. The lower appellate court has been unduly indulgent in imposing only fine. If at all the lower appellate court has gone wrong that was on the side of leniency in the sentence. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the sentence as well. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P.NO. 473/2008 : 3: