IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1289 of 2008()
1. RAJAN, S/O.NANU, KUNDARAKUNNEL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.REJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :11/04/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008
`````````````````
Dated: 11-04-2008
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. 280 of 2005 on the file
of the J.F.C.M.I, Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections
323 and 325 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Sections
323 and 325 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 7-3-2005 at about 12.45 p.m. at Chappamattom the accused
out of his enmity towards P.W.1 stopped the mini lorry bearing Reg.
No. KL-5-E/1371 driven by P.W.1 and after pulling him out of the lorry
beat him on his left cheek with bare hand and twisted his left hand
resulting in dislocation of the left hand at the shoulder. The accused
has thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and
325 I.P.C.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed
against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the
Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 -:2:-
prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case.
The prosecution altogether examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 7 and
and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5.
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
16-09-2006 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. and sentenced him to
simple imprisonment for three months and one year respectively with
a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The revision
petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to P.W.1 as
compensation under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C.
6. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the
Sessions Court the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 1-3-
2008 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence directing
the revision petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to
pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec.
Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 -:3:-
323 and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay
fine of Rs. 2,500/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple
imprisonment for 15 days under Sec. 325 I.P.C. A sum of Rs. 3,000/-
from out of fine was directed to be paid to P.W.1 by way of
compensation under Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C. 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. 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 interests of justice will be adequately met by imposing a
sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence
imposed on the revision petitioner under Sec. 325 I.P.C. is set aside
and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court
Crl.R.P. No. 1289 of 2008 -:4:-
and to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- to P.W.1 under Sec. 3657 (3)
Cr.P.C. The sentence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. is not interfered with. The
fine as well as compensation shall be deposited before the trial court
within 45 days from today failing which the revision petitioner shall
undergo a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month
under Sec. 325 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for 15 days under Sec.
323 I.P.C.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge.
/true copy/
ani.