IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2371 of 2008()
1. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.JAMAL MUHAMMEDL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY IT PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :20/08/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Cr.R.P.No.2371 of 2008
===================
Dated: 20.08.2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.365 of 2002
on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal for offences punishable
under Sections 452,324 and 379 IPC challenges the conviction
entered and the sentence passed against him for offences
punishable under Sections 452 and 324 I.PC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 2.11.01 at about 1.10 p.m., the accused out of his
enmity towards PW1 criminally trespassed into the grocery shop
of PW1 at Paluvally Junction at Kallara and inflicted stab injuries
on PW2 the wife of PW1 resulting in PW2 sustaining stab injuries
on left side of her chest, back of her chest just, above her left hip
and also on her left cheek and abrasion on her neck. The
accused also committed theft of currency notes worth
Rs.10,000/- kept inside the table of the shop.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008
-:2:-
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 P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 5 documents as Exts.
P1 to 5.
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 31.05.05 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
each and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each and on default to pay the
fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months each for the said
offences. Substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs.5000/-
was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation. On appeal
Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008
-:3:-
preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No.464 of
2005 before the Sessions Court(Fast Track III),
Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Sessions Judge as
per judgment dated 29.02.2008 dismissed the appeal confirming
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 the interests of justice
Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008
-:4:-
will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section
324 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the
rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten
thousand only) as compensation to PW2, the injured. For his
conviction under Section 452 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) and on default to
pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The
revision petitioner shall deposit the fine amount as well as the
compensation amount within two months from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
sj
Crl.R.P.No.2371/2008
-:5:-