IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1304 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.421/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM SC.14/1991 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. PRASAD, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KANNUTTU VEEDU, PANTHAPLAYIKONAM,NELLINADU MURI, PULLAMPARA VILLAGE. 2. RAJU S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, KANNUTTU VEEDU, PANTHAPLAYIKONAM, NELLANADU MURI, PULLAMPARAVILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.DIPU.R RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1304 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009. ORDER Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.14 of 1991 of the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Attingal are the petitioners in this revision. They, along with a few others faced trial in that court for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 13.8.1990 at about 10 a.m. petitioners and others formed unlawful assembly, committed rioting with deadly weapons, wrongfully confined PW1 and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly accused No.1 attempted to cause death of PW2 by inflicting a stab injury with a knife. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found accused No.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 342 of the Code. Petitioners and others were found guilty only under Section 342 of the Code. Petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and payment of fine of Rs.500/- each. Their challenge to the conviction and sentence as above stated did not succeed in the appeal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) II, Thiruvananthapuram dismissed Crl.Appeal No.421 of 2000. Hence this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that conviction of the petitioners is not legally sustainable. The further contention is that sentence awarded to the petitioners is excessive. Crl.R.P.No.1304/2009 2 2. So far the offence proved against the petitioners is concerned, there is evidence of PWs 1 to 3, 5 and 6. The fact that PW2 sustained injury also is proved in the case. Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence and found petitioners guilty under Section 342 of the Code which I find no reason to interfere with as it is not shown that the finding suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 3. What then remained is only whether sentence awarded to the petitioners is excessive. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge observed that though the offence found against petitioners is only under Section 342 of the Code considering the gravity of offence they are awarded rigorous imprisonment for six months each and fine of Rs.500/- each. Learned counsel brought to my notice the order of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1009 of 2009 which concerned accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the same case who along with petitioners were found guilty for offence punishable under Section 342 of the Code and sentenced as above stated. In that case while this Court refused to interfere with the conviction for offence punishable under Section 342 of the Code, the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. They were directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- to PW2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account modification of the sentence in favour of accused Nos.4 and 5, I am inclined to think that sentence imposed on petitioners could be modified accordingly, at the same time making them liable to pay compensation to PW2 who sustained injury. Crl.R.P.No.1304/2009 3 Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the extent that sentence imposed on petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 342 of the Code is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. They are directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to PW2, Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) each by way of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within one month from this day, failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Petitioners shall appear in the trial court on 26.9.2009 to receive the sentence. Until then execution of warrant if any against the petitioners will stand in abeyance. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks