IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1167 of 2009()
1. BIJU KUMAR, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR
... Petitioner
2. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
==========================
Crl. R.P. No. 1167 of 2009
===========================
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009,.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in
C.C. No.118 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-
II, Attingal for offences punishable under Sections 447, 324 and 323
r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against them for the aforementioned offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 28.12.1996, at 3.30 p.m., the three accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into
the property of PW1 situated at Thakara Paramb in Pallickal village
and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by A1 hitting him with a stone
causing an injury on the left eye-brow and A2 and A3 by fisting and
kicking the recumbent PW1. 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 8 witnesses as P.Ws 1
Crl.R.P.No. 1167/2009 : 2 :
to 8 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and a stone
as MO1.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
were questioned under Sec. 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
09.06.1999 found the revision petitioners (who alone stood trial)
guilty of the offences and sentenced each of them to simple
imprisonment for three months under Section 447 IPC, simple
imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and simple
imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC. They were
each ordered to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to PW1
presumably under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On appeal preferred by
the revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 244 of 1999 before the
Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court-II as per judgment dated 31.05.2008
dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the
sentence passed. Hence, this Revision.
Crl.R.P.No. 1167/2009 : 3 :
6. Eventhough 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 the case, I do not think that the revision
petitioners deserve penal servitude by way of incarceration for the
said conviction. The sentence imposed by the courts below is set
aside. I am of the view that interest of justice will be adequately
met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly,
for their conviction under Section 323 IPC, each of the revision
petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five
hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for 15 days. For their conviction under Section 324
IPC, each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment
till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees
two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation to PW1, the
Crl.R.P.No. 1167/2009 : 4 :
injured. For their conviction under Section 447 IPC, each of the
revision petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees
five hundred only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for 15 days. The petitioners are given one month’s
time from today to deposit the fine as well as the compensation
amount before the trial court. On default to pay the compensation,
the defaulting petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for two
months by way of default sentence. The petitioners shall report
before the trial court on 29.04.2009 to receive the sentence of
imprisonment till the rising of the court.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv