IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4026 of 2007()
1. HAREENDRAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :17/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 4026 of 2007
====================
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.195
of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery for
an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, challenges the
conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the
said offence.
2. The case of the prosecution as unravelled by the
evidence can be summarised as follows:
On 23.06.2000, at about 5.45 p.m., at Nellithara by the
side of Pullanithodu-Kayamkulam road in Thripangottoor amsom,
Poyiloor desom, while PW1 was returning to his house after doing
the mason work, the accused who was standing by the side of the
said road, threatened PW1 by shouting at him that PW1 should
not have the feeling that he was let free by the accused. So
saying, the accused set upon him with a billhook in his hand and
stabbed PW1 on the left shoulder which was resisted by PW1 by
using his right hand. The accused again stabbed PW1 on the
CRL.R.P. NO. 4026/2007 :2:
right shoulder. Hearing the hue and cry of PW1, PWs 3 and 4
who were near the scene rushed to the spot. Seeing the
approaching witnesses, the accused ran away from the spot with
the billhook in his hand. PW1 was rushed to the Co-Operative
Hospital, Thalassery where he was examined by PW5, the doctor
who issued Ext.P2 wound certificate which showed the following
injuries.
i. Lacerated wound penetrating type of deep wound
10 cm x 4 cm on the posterior aspect of left shoulder
with fresh bleeding.
ii. Lacerated wound on the anterior lateral aspect of
right upper arm with bleeding 4 cm x 2 cm size.
iii. Lacerated wound on the right thumb.
iv. Lacerated wound on the right upper arm 4 cm
long.
v. lacerated wound beginning from the lateral aspect
of the left clavicle extending vertically down for
about 10 cm.
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 9
CRL.R.P. NO. 4026/2007 :3:
witnesses as PWs 1 to 9 and got marked 5 documents as Exts.
P1 to P5.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused was questioned under Section 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 17.05.2002 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three
years under Section 326 IPC and also directed him to pay a sum
of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to
PW1. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.
Appeal No. 238 of 2002 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery,
the Additional Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 04.08.2007
confirmed the conviction entered but modified the sentence by
reducing the rigorous imprisonment to one year and enhancing
the compensation to Rs.25,000/-. Hence, this Revision.
CRL.R.P. NO. 4026/2007 :4:
6. Even though 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 interests of justice will
be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to the
imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay a sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) as compensation
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to PW1. On failure to pay the
CRL.R.P. NO. 4026/2007 :5:
compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for four
months. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount
before the trial court within two months from today. Money, if
any, deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court
shall be adjusted towards the sum of Rs.35,000/- to be deposited
and such money in deposit shall also be paid to PW1.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv