IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1098 of 2009() 1. RAJAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, KOLLANTTAYYATHU ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.HARILAL For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :06/04/2009 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated: 6-4-2009 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. 713 of 2005
on the file of the J.F.C.M. Kayamkulam for an offence punishable
under Section 324 I.P.C. challenges the conviction entered and
the sentence passed against him by the lower appellate court for
an offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
On 25-7-2005 at about 12 noon while P.W.1 Chellamma
was proceeding along the pathway situated in Ward No. 8 in the
company of CW2 a small baby, the accused out of his enmity
towards P.W.1 assaulted her with a piece of cutjan causing
minor injuries to P.W.1 and CW2. The accused has thereby
committed an offence punishable under Sec. 324 I.P.C.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2009 -:2:-
framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned
offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in
support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 5
witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 5 and got marked 5 documents as Exts.
P1 to P5 and a cutjan as MO1.
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 15-3-2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
ffences under Sec. 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a
compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. On
appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions
Court, the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara as per judgment
dated 28/2/2008 altered the conviction into one punishable
under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and sentenced the revision petitioner to
Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2009 -:3:-
simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.
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 interest justice will
be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Sec. 323
I.P.C., the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till
rising of the Court and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- each to
P.W.1 and C.W.2 by way of compensation under Sec. 357 (3)
Crl.R.P. No. 1098 of 2009 -:4:-
Cr.P.C. On default to pay the compensation, the revision
petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
The revision petitioner is given one month’s time to deposit the
compensation amount of Rs. 7,000/- before the trial court.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.