Responsive image

Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009




Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1098 of 2009()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       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.



/true copy/


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information