IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 513 of 2010()
1. VEDAS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAJAGOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 513 of 2010
===================
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. the revision
petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No.225 of 2006 on the
file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode for an
offence punishable under Section 509 IPC challenges the
conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the
said offence.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 09.06.2006, at about 7 p.m., from the vicinity of a
stationery shop by name Fouz stores near the English Church in
Kacheri Amsom and Desom of Kozhikode Taluk, when PW1, a
woman police Constable not in her uniform, came for purchasing
articles from the said shop, the revision petitioner made gestures
and uttered words intending to outrage the modesty of PW1. The
accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 509 IPC.
Crl.R.P. No. 513/2010 -:2:-
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 2 documents as Exts.
P1 and P2.
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 16.08.2008 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on default to pay the
fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for 18 days. On appeal
preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 772 of 2008 before the
Sessions Court, Kozhikode the learned Additional Sessions Judge
Crl.R.P. No. 513/2010 -:3:-
as per judgment dated 11.11.2009 has confirmed the conviction
entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner.
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 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, for his conviction under Section 509
IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the
Crl.R.P. No. 513/2010 -:4:-
rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be
paid within two months failing which the petitioner shall undergo
simple imprisonment for two months by way of default sentence.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv