IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2099 of 2008()
1. JAYAN @ THAMPAN,
... Petitioner
2. SABU, S/O. THANKAPPAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
==========================
Crl.R.P. No. 2099 of 2008
==========================
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The revision petitioners who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in
C.C. No. 381 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Vaikom for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii),
294(b) and 353 r/w Section 149 IPC, challenge the conviction entered
and the sentence passed against them under Section 143, 147, 294
(b), 353 and 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:
PWs 1 to 6 are excise officials attached to the Excise Office,
Vaikom. On 03.06.2000, at about 12.15 p.m., after their official duties
they were returning to the Excise Office subsequent to the detection of
an offence. When the excise party reached at Pattathanam junction in
Sasthakulam Panchayat, the six accused persons formed themselves
into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of
the said assembly, A1 brandished a sword stick by standing in front of
the jeep in which the excise party was travelling and intimidated the
prosecution withnesses causing fear of death. A2 uttered obscene
words and caused annoyance to the Excise Party. A3 to A6 assisted
Crl. R.P. No. 2099/2008 : 2:
A1 and A2 in carrying out the aforesaid offences. The accused have
thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
4. 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 10 witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 and
got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4.
5. 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 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.
6. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated
21.11.2006 acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 6, but convicted the revision
petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences referred to above and
imposed simple imprisonment for one month under Section 143 r/w
Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for six months under Section
147 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for one year under
Section 148 r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for one month
Crl. R.P. No. 2099/2008 : 3:
under Section 294(b) r/w Section 149 IPC, simple imprisonment for six
months under Section 353 r/w Section 149 IPC and simple
imprisonment for one year under Section 506(ii) r/w Section 149 IPC.
The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the
said conviction, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal as Crl.
Appeal No. 801 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam who as
per judgment dated 31.03.2008 allowed the appeal in part setting
aside the conviction of A1 under Sections 148, 506(ii) and 294(b) r/w
Section 149 IPC and setting aside the conviction of A2 under Sections
148 and 506(ii) IPC. With regard to the rest of the offences, the lower
appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the
trial court. Hence, this Revision.
7. Even though 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.
Crl. R.P. No. 2099/2008 : 4:
8. What now survives for consideration is the question
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 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 pay a fine of Rs.1000 (Rupees one thousand only) and on
default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month
under Section 143 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two
thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months under Section 147 IPC and to pay a fine
of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and on default to pay the
fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section
353 IPC. For the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC, the 2nd accused
is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)
and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. Out of the fine, amount as and when realised, a sum of
Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1, a sum
Crl. R.P. No. 2099/2008 : 5:
of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid to PW9 and a
sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each shall be paid to
PWs 1 to 4 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The
petitioners are given 45 days from today to deposit the fine amount
before the trial court.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
Crl. R.P. No. 2099/2008 : 6: