IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 888 of 2010()
1. MANIKANDAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.M.PREM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. NO. 888 of 2010
`````````````````
Dated: 17-3-2010
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.433 of 2005
on the file of the J.F.C.M., Alathur for offences punishable under
Section 324 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offence.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 19-4-2005 at about 11 a.m. on account of his previous
enmity towards the de facto complainant/P.W.1 (Damayanthi) the
accused assaulted her with a spade resulting in her sustaining
an incised injury to the left forearm. The accused has thereby
committed the above offence.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed
against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the
prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its
case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1
to 6 and got marked 3documents as Exts. P1 to P3and the handle
of a spade as MO1.
Crl.R.P. NO. 888 of 2010 -:2:-
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 him in the evidence
for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence
evidence when called upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 27-6-2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence
punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on
default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. From out of the fine a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was directed to
be paid to P.W.1 the injured under Sec. 357 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. On
appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl. Appeal No. 450
of 2008 before the Sessions court, the learned Addl. Sessions
Judge (Fast Tract – II) as per judgment dated 4-1-2010 dismissed
the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against him. 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
Crl.R.P. NO. 888 of 2010 -:3:-
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 interest justice will be
adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter.
Accordingly, for his conviction under Section Sec. 324 I.P.C. the
Revision Petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of
Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand only) to P.W.1 the injured and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two
thousand only) to the State. The compensation shall be deposited
before the trial Court within 45 days failing which he shall suffer
simple imprisonment for one month by way of default sentence.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Sd/-V.Ramkumar,
Judge.
ani /true copy/
Crl.R.P. NO. 888 of 2010 -:4:-