IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2860 of 2008()
1. BABU, S/O. UNNI, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SURESH S/O. BHASKARAN AGED 35 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY S.I. OF POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :29/08/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008
`````````````````
Dated: 29-08-2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioners who were accused Nos. 3 and 5 in
C.C. No. 322 of 1994 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I,
Neyyattinkara for offences punishable unde5r Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 324 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. challenge the
conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently
against them for the aforementioned offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised
as follows:
On 25-12-1995 at about 5.30 a.m. accused formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed
rioting armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, wooden
sticks etc. and in prosecution of their common object A2
fisted the P.W.1 on his back and A1 and A2 fisted on his
chest and P.W.1 sustained injuries on his lips, A2 fisted
him on his right eye causing contusion, A3 beat P.W.1 on
his lower abdomen with a stick, A4 beat him with an iron
rod on his left knee. Seeing this incident, when P.W.2 the
father of P.W.1 came to the spot A5 beat him with an iron
rod on his head and P.W.2 sustained injuries. A4 beat
Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 -:2:-
P.W.3 with an iron rod on his toe and right hand. A4 also
beat P.W.4 with an iron rod on his right leg. The
occurrence took place at Kavalalakulam within the
jurisdiction of Neyyattinkara police station.
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 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got
marked 8 documents as Exts. P1 to P8.
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 8-10-1999 found all the accused persons
guilty of the offences charged against them. For the
conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323 each of
them was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months
and for the conviction under Sec. 324 I.P.C. each of them
was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year.
Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
On appeal preferred by all the 5 accused persons before
Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 -:3:-
the Sessions Court, Thiruvananathapuram, the Addl.
Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31-12-2007
confirmed the conviction entered but modified the sentence
by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to three months
under Secs. 143, 147, 148 and 323 I.P.C. and to six months
under Sec. 324 I.P.C. 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 interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a
sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, For
their conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 323 I.P.C.
each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple
Crl.R.P. No. 2860 of 2008 -:4:-
imprisonment for 15 days. For their conviction under Sec.
324 I.P.C. each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to
imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.
3,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months. From out of the fine amount
a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 by way of
compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. and a sum of Rs.
3,000/- each shall be paid as compensation to P.Ws 2 to 4
each under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount shall be
deposited within one month from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming
the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed
as above.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
ani.