IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 94 of 2011()
1. RAJEEV
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :11/01/2011
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.94 of 2011
= == = = = = = = = = = ==
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011
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.959/2003 on
the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Ernakulam for offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC, challenges the conviction
entered and the sentence passed against him for offences
punishable under Sections323 and 294(b) IPC .
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 7.2.2003 at 8.15 pm while PW1 was on
service in his bus bearing registration No.KL7
AK 157 at the Cheranellur-Edappally level
cross, the accused on account of his previous
enmity towards PW1 assaulted him and also
abused him in filthy language. The accused
has thereby committed the offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
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 4
Crl.R.P.No.94/2011 -:2:-
witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 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 23.06.2009 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 294(b) IPC and
sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
under section 323 IPC and for six months under Section 294(b)
IPC. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the
Addl.Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam, the lower appellate
court as per judgment dated 13.08.2010 acquitted the revision
petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC
but confirmed the conviction entered against the revision
petitioner for the offence under Section 323 and reduced the
sentence of imprisonment to one month and directed him to pay
Crl.R.P.No.94/2011 -:3:-
a fine of `1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only). 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, for the conviction under Section 323
IPC, the two days’ imprisonment already undergone by the
petitioner will suffice, besides a sum of `5,000/- (Rupees five
Crl.R.P.No.94/2011 -:4:-
thousand only) to PWI/ injured as compensation under Section
357(3) Cr.P.C The petitioner is given one month’s time to
deposit the compensation, failing which he shall undergo default
sentence by way of simple imprisonment for three months.
The petitioner shall be released from prison forthwith
unless his continued detention is found necessary in connection
with any other case against him. His release shall, however, be
subject to his liability to pay the compensation as above.
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
sj