IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3239 of 2009()
1. PRAMOD @ BABU, AGED 31 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. PRASANNAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. USHA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SAJI,
3. SAJI, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :16/10/2009
O R D E R
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
-------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 3239 OF 2009
----------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009
O R D E R
The revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C No. 142
of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pathanamthitta. They were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of
Police, Koipuram in Crime No. 223 of 2006 for offence punishable
u/ss. 341, 323,324,294(b), 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC. After trial the
learned Magistrate arrived a finding that the prosecution had
succeeded to establish offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC
as against the first revision petitioner and offence under Section
323 IPC as against the 2nd revision petitioner. Accordingly they
were convicted for the said offences. For the other offences they
were acquitted. The first revision petitioner was sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment for seven days for the offence u/s.341 IPC; and
simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s.323
IPC. The 2nd revision petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months for offence under section 323 IPC.
CRL. R.P. NO. 3237 OF 2009
2
Though the revision petitioners preferred appeal, they were not
successful.
2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the
above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal this
revision petition was filed.
3. Now the revision petitioners had settled the matter with
Pws1 and 2 who were injured and they filed a joint application as
Crl.M.A No. 10043 of 2009. Having heard either side, I find no
reason to reject the petition. The offence for which the revision
petitioners are convicted are compoundable. In the above
circumstances Crl.M.A No. 1043 of 2009 is recorded and the
revision petitioners are acquitted under Section 320(8) of IPC.
They would be set at liberty.
The Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.
P.S. GOPINATHAN
JUDGE
PKK
