IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2357 of 2008()
1. ASOKAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 2357 of 2008
====================
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401
Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C.
No.238 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III,
Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 427 and 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, challenge the conviction
entered and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the
courts below for the aforementioned offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 08.11.1999, at about 8.30 p.m., at Murukkumpuzha junction
near the pathway towards Kannettukonam, in front of Preethi Bhavan
house bearing No. S.P.3/113, the 7 accused persons formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the
common object of the said assembly, they committed rioting armed
with deadly weapons like swords etc. and committed mischief by
pelting stones at the tiles and the glasses of the said house causing a
loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to PW1. Seeing the act of the accused,
when PW1 came out of the house, A1 voluntarily caused hurt to the
CRL.R.P. NO. 2357 of 2008 :2:
PW1 by inflicting a cut injury by means of sword. A2 voluntarily
caused hurt to PW2 by cutting with a sword. The accused have
thereby committed the aforementioned offences.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed
against them 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 PWs 1 to 6 and
got marked 4 documents as Exts. P1 to P4.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
were 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.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated
25.03.2006 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and
sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for six months under
Section 143 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for each of the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 324 r/w Section
149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and on default to pay the
CRL.R.P. NO. 2357 of 2008 :3:
fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for offences
under Sections 427 and 324 IPC. From out of the fine amount, a sum
of Rs.15,000/- was directed to be given to PW1 and Rs.5000/- was
directed to be given to PW2 by way of compensation. On appeal
preferred by the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 287 of 2006
and the rest of the accused as Crl. Appeal No. 334 of 2006 before the
Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Additional Sessions Judge as
per judgment dated 03.05.2008 acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 7 of all
the offences, but confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against the revision petitioners. Hence, this Revision.
6. 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.
7. 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
CRL.R.P. NO. 2357 of 2008 :4:
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 the revision
petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one
thousand only) under Sections 143 and 149 IPC each and on default
to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For
their conviction under Section 147 IPC, each of them is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and on default to
pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For their
conviction under Sections 148 and 324 IPC, each of the revision
petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three
thousand only) each and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months. For their conviction under Section
427 IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and on default to pay the fine,
to suffer simple imprisonment for four months. From out of the fine
amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) shall be
paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. A sum of
CRL.R.P. NO. 2357 of 2008 :5:
Rs.8000/- shall be paid to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1)
Cr.P.C. The petitioners are given two months time from today to
deposit the fine 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 16th day of July, 2008.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv