IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2585 of 2008()
1. HARI KUMAR, S/O.LAKSHMANAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTE BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/08/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 2585 of 2008
`````````````````
Dated: 04-08-2008
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. 454 of 2003 on the file
of the J.F.C.M. Vaikom for an offence punishable under Section 332
read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against him for the aforementioned offence.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. What has been unravelled by the oral and documentary
evidence in the case is the following:-
P.W.9 a woman police constable was on traffic control duty at
Vaikom private bus stand on 5-5-2003. At that time the petitioner
herein and his brother the absconding first accused after consuming
liquor were causing disturbance to the passengers. P.W.9 informed
the matter to the police station. The Assistant Sub Inspector along
with his police party came and took the revision petitioner and the
first accused to the police station. After reaching the police station,
both the revision petitioner and the first accused kicked and beat PWs
Crl.R..P. No. 2585 of 2008 -:2:-
5 and 11 who are police constables. P.W.5 had a lacerated injury 2 x
1 cms. on the lower lip of P.W5 and a contusion 2×1 c.m. on the face
besides pain on the head and shoulder. P.W.11 had an abrasion 2×1
cm near his nasal orifice . The above injuries were confirmed by
Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates.
5. The learned Magistrate split up the case against A1 who
was absconding and convicted the revision petitioner and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 332
read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. On appeal preferred by him before the
Sessions Court, Kottayam as Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2007 the learned
Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, as per judgment dated 26-06-2008
confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the
revision petitioner. The conviction has been recorded by the courts
below 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.
6. What now survives for consideration is the sentence
imposed on the revision petitioner. The fact that the petitioner along
with his brother attacked the policemen after they were taken to the
police station shows the daring manner in which the petitioner and his
brother conducted themselves. It was on account of the drunken
conduct of the petitioner and his brother that the woman police
constable informed the police station resulting in the police reaching
Crl.R..P. No. 2585 of 2008 -:3:-
the spot and taking them to the police station. Instead of behaving
as law abiding citizens they opened an aggression at the policemen
on duty in the police station. Penal servitude by way of incarceration
alone can serve as an effective disincentive against such conduct.
However, the petitioner does not deserve imprisonment for one year,
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence
of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner is reduced to
simple imprisonment for three months. He is also directed to pay a
fine of Rs. Rs. 3000/- from which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and a sum of
Rs. 500/- respectively shall be given as compensation to P.Ws 5 and
11 under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The compensation shall be deposited
before the trial court 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.
Crl.R..P. No. 2585 of 2008 -:4:-