IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 695 of 2010()
1. PRAKASAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.CHATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :25/02/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No. 695 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated:25.02.2010
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C. No.367
on the file of the J.F.C.M, North Paravur for offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC read with 34
IPC challenges the conviction entered and the sentence
passed against him for an offence punishable under Section
324 I.PC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised
as follows:
Due to previous enmity towards PW1 as he had
questioned the accused (husband and wife) in respect of an
earlier incident in which the daughter of PW1 was teased by
them, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a
brick used as a deadly weapon in furtherance of their
common intention. The accused have thereby committed
Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010
-:2:-
the aforesaid offence.
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 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got
marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6 and a brick as MOI.
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 22.07.2008 convicted the 2nd accused of
the offence punishable 352 IPC but acquitted her of the
offences punishable under Section 323 and 324 read with
Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010
-:3:-
34 IPC. The revision petitioner was found guilty of the
offence punishable under Sections 324 IPC and convicted
under Section 248(2) Cr.P P.C. and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of
Rs.2000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple
imprisonment for three months. On appeal preferred by the
accused before the Sessions Court as Crl.Appeal No.618 of
2008 before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad
hoc- III), N. Paravur, the lower appellate court as per
judgment dated 31.12.2009 confirmed the conviction
entered but modified the sentence by reducing the
imprisonment to six months. It is the said judgment which
is assailed in 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
Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010
-:4:-
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, the
sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and
instead he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- within
one month from today. On default to pay the fine he shall
suffer simple imprisonment for one month. From out of the
fine amount a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only)
shall be paid to PW1/injured as compensation under Section
357(1)(b) Cr.P.C
Crl.R.P. No. 695/2010
-:5:-
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming
the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed
as above.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
sj