IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1912 of 2008()
1. P.ARUNKUMAR @ SADASIVAN, S/O RAJAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA -REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :13/06/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 1912 of 2008
====================
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C.,
the petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C. No.1105 of 2001 on the
file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences
punishable under Sections 452, 326, 324, 506(ii) and 427 r/w Section
34 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed
against him for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 326 r/w
Section 34 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 6.11.2000, at about 3.30 p.m., the three accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the
building bearing No. 11/303 of Kumbalam village, wherein PW2 was
conducting a pappadam manufacturing unit in the name and style of ‘A
Class Pappadam Works’ and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW1
by A1 hitting him on his face with an iron lock resulting in his loss of an
incisor, tooth and caused hurt to PW2 by beating on his left hand with
an iron rod used as a deadly weapon and A2 and A3 brandished a knife
and put PWs 1 and 2 under fear of death and the accused persons
CRL.R.P. No. 1912/2008 :2:
thereafter committed mischief in the building causing a loss to the tune
of Rs.2000/- to PW2.
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 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and
got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5 and 3 material objects as
Mos. 1 to 3.
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
18.05.2006 acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3, but convicted the revision
petitioner/1st accused of offences punishable under Sections 452 and
326 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the said offences and on
default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six
CRL.R.P. No. 1912/2008 :3:
months. From out of the fine amount, Rs.15000/- was directed to be
paid to PW1 and Rs.5000/- was directed to be paid to PW2 as
compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner was
acquitted of the other offences namely Sections 324, 506(ii) and 427
r/w Section 34 IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as
Crl. Appeal No. 487/2006 before the IV Addl. Sessions Court,
Ernakulam, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated
11.04.2008 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision.
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
CRL.R.P. No. 1912/2008 :4:
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
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and on default to pay the
fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under
Sections 452 and 326 IPC. From out of the fine amount, a sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 and a
sum of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) shall be paid to PW2 by
way of compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount
shall be deposited before the court below within 45 days from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv