IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2477 of 2008()
1. NOUSHASD, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED
... Petitioner
2. SELVARAJ, S/O.GEORGE PALLITHARA
3. JOSE @ JOY, S/O.GEORGE
4. MANIYAN, S/O.PANGAN, DO.DO.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :25/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Cr.R.P.Nos.2477, 2481
& 2492 of 2008
===================
Dated: 25.07.2008
O R D E R
The revision petitioners,who are accused Nos.2 to 6, 9 & 11
in C.C. No.32 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Attingal for
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427,324 and
506(ii) read with 149 IPC challenge the conviction entered and
the sentence passed against them for the aforementioned
offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 3.8.96 at 11.30 in the night the 11 accused persons and
others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in
prosecution of the common object to the said assembly, they
committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like pickaxe, spade
etc. and trespassed into the property of PW1( Pathimuthu)
situated at Palankonam Panchayat and committed mischief by
destroying the southern and western boundary and fencing
causing a loss of Rs.25,000/-. A1 pelted stones at PW2, thereby
Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases
-:2:-
voluntarily caused injury on the left knee of PW2(Safir). A2 to A4
threatened PW1 and 2 by showing deadly weapons and criminally
intimidated them.
3. All the accused persons except A1 and A7 faced the trial.
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 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 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 5.2.2000 found A2 to A6, A9 and A11 guilty of the
offences and sentenced each of them to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months each under sections punishable
Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases
-:3:-
under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 427 read with 149 IPC, simple
imprisonment for one month each under Sections 324 and 506(ii)
read with 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for three months
under Section 447 read with 149 IPC. The substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeals
preferred by the revision petitioners before the Sessions Court,
Fast Track (Ad hoc)No.II, Thiruvananthapuram as Crl. Appeal
Nos.73, 85 and 86 of 2000, the lower appellate court as per
common judgment dated 31.05.2008 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
Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases
-:4:-
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 view that the interests of 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 each of them is sentenced to
a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) under Sections
143,147,148,447 and 506(ii)read with 149 IPC and on default to
pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Each
of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till the
rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two
thousand only) under Section 324 IPC and on default to pay the
fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the
conviction under Section 427 IPC each of the revision petitioners
is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the
fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. From out of
the fine amount a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand
Crl.R.P.No.2477/08 & con.cases
-:5:-
only) shall be paid to PW1 for the loss sustained by him and a
sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) paid to PW2, the
injured. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount within 45
days from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
sj