IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2569 of 2008()
1. CHRISPIN, S/O.PALAYYAN NADAR,
... Petitioner
2. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.PALAYYAN NADAR,
3. BIJU, S/O.PALAYYAN NADAR, MOOLAYITHOTTAM
4. JOY, S/O.VARGHESE, THAITHOTTAM VEEEDU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008
`````````````````
Dated: 31-07-2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C.
the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.740 of 2002 on the
file of the J.F.C.M.I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under
Sections 448 and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenge the
conviction entered and the sentence passed by the lower appellate
court against them for the aforementioned offences .
The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:
The accused persons attempted to collect fee by way of toll
for taking mini lorries across the new bridge constructed at
Palakkadavu even before its inauguration. This was questioned by
the de facto complainant. On account of the enmity towards him the
four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to
cause hurt to P.W.1 at about 11 p.m. on 28-10-2001 criminally
trespassed into the courtyard of P.W.1’s house armed with chopper
etc. The first accused dealt a blow on the head of P.W.1 with the
chopper. A2 dealt a blow on his left cheek with a chopper. A3 also
dealt a blow on his left hand with a chopper. A4 beat him with a
Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 -:2:-
stick on the head resulting in P.W.1 sustaining injuries.
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 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and
got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6.
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
25-09-2006 found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences and
sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for one month under
Sec. 448 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for six months and to pay
fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay fine to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month under Sec. 326 I.P.C. Out of the fine
amount a sum of Rs. 1,500/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1 as
compensation. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before
the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Sessions Judge
Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 -:3:-
converted the conviction under Sec. 448 into one punishable under
Sec 447 I.P.C. and sentenced each of the revision petitioners to pay
fine of Rs. 500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month and for the conviction under Sec. 324
I.P.C. the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one month only
and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on failure to pay fine to suffer
simple imprisonment for one month by way of default sentence.
From out of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was directed to be
paid to P.W.1 as compensation. Hence, this Revision.
6. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner 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. I am of the
Crl.R.P. NO. 2569 of 2008 -:4:-
view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a
sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence
imposed on the revision petitioners for the conviction under Sec. 324
I.P.C. is set aside and instead each of the revision petitioners shall
pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine and on default to pay the fine each
of them shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months by way of
default sentence. The fine amount shall be deposited before the courts
below within 30 days from today . From out of the fine amount a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
ani.