IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2635 of 2008()
1. CHINNAMMA, AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Cr.R.P.No.2635 of 2008
===================
Dated: 6.08.2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner, a 37 year old lady, who was the accused
in C.C. No.2010 of 2003 on the file of the J.F.C.M,
Kothamangalam for offences punishable under Sections 324 and
294(b) IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against her by the courts below for the offence
punishable under Section 324 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On account of the enmity arising out of a boundary dispute
between the de facto complainant (PW3) and the accused, on
11.06.03 at about 7.15 p.m at a place near the water tank
situated by the side of the road leading Chathamattom, accused
abused the PW3 in a filthy language and also struck her on the
forehead with MO1 axe and voluntarily caused hurt to PW3. The
accused has thereby committed offences punishable under
Section 294(b) and 324 IPC.
Crl.R.P.No.2635/2008
:2:-
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
framed against her 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 6 documents as Exts.
P1 to P6 and an axe as MO1.
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 her
in the evidence for the prosecution. She denied those
circumstances and maintained her innocence. She did not
adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 17.11.07 acquitted the revision petitioner of the offence
punishable under Section 294(b) IPC but convicted her of the
offences punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced her
to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, failing which she was directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months On appeal preferred by the
revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as
Crl.R.P.No.2635/2008
:3:-
Crl.Appeal No.793 of 2007, the lower appellate court as per
judgment dated 9.07.2008 confirmed the conviction entered but
reduced the rigorous imprisonment to one month. Sentence of
fine imposed by the trial court was not interfered with. 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 the interests of justice
will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
Crl.R.P.No.2635/2008
:4:-
hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner is set aside under Section 324 IPC and she is
sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to
pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The
revision petitioner shall deposit the fine amount before the trial
court within one month from today. From out of the fine amount,
a sum of Rs.4500/- shall be paid to PW3 as compensation.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
sj