IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2065 of 2008(C)
1. JAYAGOPAL, S/O BALAN, OTTAPLAVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :28/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. NO. 2065 of 2008
`````````````````
Dated: 28-07-2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 4th accused in C.C. No.392 of
2000 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Neyyattinkara for offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 506 (ii) and
188 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
P.W.1, the de facto complainant owns property in Re-sy. No.
401/18 and 401/23 of Athiyannoor village. On 20-12-1998 at
about 11 p.m. 18 accused persons and others criminally
trespassed into the said property of P.W.1 after forming
themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly
weapons like crow bar, pick-axe, spade, chopper and sword etc.
in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly to
widen the existing pathway, they demolished the compound wall
and cut cut down various trees in the property of P.W.1 causing
a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The accused have thereby committed the
aforementioned offences.
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
Crl.R.P. NO. 2065 of 2008 -:2:-
support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7
witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and got marked 17 documents as Exts.
P1 to P17 and 4.material objects as MOs 1 to 4.
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 23-2-2005 acquitted accused Nos. 5 to 18 of all the
offences and A1 to A4 of the offences punishable under Sections
188 and 448 I.P.C. but convicted A1 to A4 of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427 and 506 (i) read
with Sec. 149 I.P.C. For the conviction under Sections 143 and
447 each accused Nos. 1 to 4 were sentence to pay fine of Rs.
2,000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively with a default sentence. For
the conviction under Sections 148 and 427 I.P.c. each of them
sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and for the
conviction under Sec. 506 (1) I.P.C. each of them were sentenced
to simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by
the revision petitioner as Crl.Appeal No. 179 of 2005 on the file of
the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram lower appellate court as
per judgment dated 24-03-2008 dismissed the appeal confirming
Crl.R.P. NO. 2065 of 2008 -:3:-
the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the
revision petitioners. 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. The revision petitioner has filed an
affidavit to the effect that in the civil suit filed by the de facto
complainant against the four accused persons as O.S. 187 of
1998 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara
the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were directed to pay damages to the tune
of Rs. 58,000/- and in execution of the decree the said damages
has already been realised. But as against a total loss of Rs.
1,00,000/- incurred by the de facto complainant in the year
1998, a sum of Rs. 58,000/- alone has been realised through the
civil court. 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
Crl.R.P. NO. 2065 of 2008 -:4:-
imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and
instead he is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and on default to
pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under
Sec. 427 I.P.C. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for
one month under Sec. 506 (i) and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on
default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days
under Sec. 148 I.P.C. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.
6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) shall be paid to P.W.1 as
compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The sentence of fine
imposed by the Courts below under Sections 143 and 447 I.P.C. is
not interfered with. The petitioner shall deposit the fine amount
of Rs. 6,000/- 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. 2065 of 2008 -:5:-
