IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1194 of 2010()
1. RAJENDRAN, SON OF RAGHAVA PANICKER
... Petitioner
2. RAJASEKHARA PANICKER,
3. RAGHAVA PANICKER, S/O.GOVINDA PANICKER
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.AZAD BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 1194 of 2010
===================
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the revision petitioners who were the accused in C.C.
No.1080 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-
I, Alappuzha for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341,
323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC challenge the conviction entered
and the sentence passed against them concurrently by the courts
below for the aforementioned offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 05.07.2005, at 9 p.m., in Ward No. 8 of Mararikulam
South Panchayath, accused Nos. 1 to 4 out of their previous
enemity towards PW1, criminally trespassed into the courtyard of
Chakkanattu house and A1 wrongfully restrained PW1 and
grabbed his cloth for 2-3 minutes and A2 and A3 grabbed PW1
and pushed him down and A4 struck him with a stick on his right
shoulders below the right elbow and below the left knee whereby
Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:2:-
PW1 sustained hurt. The accused have thereby committed the
aforementioned offences.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
framed against them by the trial court for the aforementioned
offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in
support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 8
witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked 6 documents as Exts.
P1 to P6.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused were questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with
regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them
in the evidence for the prosecution. They denied those
circumstances and maintained their innocence. They did not
adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.
5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment
dated 17.03.2009 found the revision petitioners guilty of the
offences, but instead of pronouncing sentence on them at once,
they were released on probation for a period of one year under
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with a direction
Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:3:-
that each of the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/-
(Rupees one thousand only) to PW1 by way of compensation
under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved by
the said judgment, the revision petitioners filed an appeal before
the Sessions Court, Alappuzha as Crl. Appeal No. 177 of 2009.
As per judgment dated 08.01.2010, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track-II, Alappuzha dismissed the appeal
confirming the conviction entered and the release of the revision
petitioners on probation with the direction to pay compensation.
It is the said judgment which is assailed in this revision.
6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the conviction
entered against the revision petitioners, 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. Since the revision petitioners were released on probation
given by the trial court, they cannot be heard to say that the
Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:4:-
conviction recorded against them causes stigma to them. In the
light of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, there
will be no disqualification attaching to the said conviction. The
order for compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of
Offenders Act was also fully justified, having regard to the fact
that the revision petitioners had voluntarily caused hurt to PW1,
the injured. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to
interfere with the order for probation or the order for
compensation.
This revision is accordingly dismissed. The revision
petitioners are given one month’s time from today to deposit the
compensation amount and for executing the bond before the trial
court.
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
Crl.R.P. No. 1194/2010 -:5:-