IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2847 of 2007()
1. SOMARAJAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :03/08/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 2847 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner, who was the sole accused in
C.C.No.256/04 on the file of the JFCM-II, Pathanamthitta,
challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed
against him by the lower appellate court for an offence punishable
under section 324 IPC. The trial court had convicted him for
offences punishable under sections 324 and 427 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) under
each of the aforesaid offences with a direction to pay Rs.8,000/-
(Rupees eight thousand only) by way of compensation under
section 357(1) Cr.P.C. to PW1, the injured, a lady. On appeal
preferred by the revision petitioner, the lower appellate court
acquitted him of the offence punishable under section 427 IPC but
confirmed the conviction with regard to section 324 IPC and
modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for 15 days and to
pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) which was
ordered to be paid as compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No.2847/07
: 2 :
to PW1, the injured.
2. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner assailed the conviction recorded against the
revision petitioner, the conviction under section 324 IPC has been
concurrently recorded by the courts below after a careful
evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. The
courts below which are the final court of facts have appreciated
the evidence and in the absence of any infirmity in the
appreciation of evidence by the courts, then this court, sitting in
the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, dislodge the said finding and
substitute its own findings. I, therefore, confirm the conviction
recorded against the revision petitioner.
3. What now survives for consideration is the question of
adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner. Having regard to the existing dispute between the
parties regarding a right of way claimed by PW1 and the other
facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that penal
servitude by way of incarceration was called for in this case. I am
of the view that imprisonment till the rising of the court and an
appropriate fine shall meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, for his
Crl.R.P.No.2847/07
: 3 :
conviction under section 324 IPC, the revision petitioner is
sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). From out of the
fine amount, as and when realized, a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees
three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 by way of
compensation under section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Time of payment of
fine is 45 days. On default to pay the fine, the revision petitioner
shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
This revision is disposed of as above.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks