IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1817 of 2008()
1. RAJU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :09/06/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CRL.R.P. No. 1817 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of June 2008
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.
No.772/2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Sasthamcotta for
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read
with section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered and
the sentence passed against them for offences punishable
under Sections 324 and 326 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised
as follows:
PW1, the de facto complainant is the owner of a granite
quarry situated adjacent to the residence of the accused
persons. On 20.9.2001, the accused obstructed the blasting
of rocks from that quarry. Aggrieved by the obstruction
caused by the accused, PW1 had preferred a petition before
the local police. Getting irritated by the conduct of PW1, on
CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:2:-
20.9.2001 at about 7.15 p.m., the 4 accused persons, in
prosecution of their common intention, voluntarily caused
grievous hurt to PW1, when he went over to the quarry for
discharging excess water. A1 beat PW1 on his forehead with
an iron road causing an injury with profuse bleeding and also
fracture of skull. A2 and A3 hit him on the back of his chest,
shoulder and right forearm with MO2 twig of Anjili tree. The
accused persons 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 9 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 9 and got
marked 9 documents as Exts. P1 to P9 and two material
objects as MOs.1 and 2.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused were questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.
with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing
CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:3:-
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 31.5.2007 found the revision petitioners
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and
326 IPC and sentenced each of them to rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and on default to pay the fine directed them to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months under Section 326 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 IPC
with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
On appeal preferred by the revision petitioners before the
Sessions Court, Kollam, the lower appellate court
confirmed the conviction entered and dismissed the appeal,
as per judgment dated 19.2.2008. Hence, this revision.
6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioners assailed on various grounds the
CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:4:-
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. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on each of the
revision petitioners is set aside and for their conviction
under Section 326 IPC, each of them is sentenced to
imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a compensation
of Rs.5,000/- each to PW1 by way of compensation under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On default to pay the compensation,
the defaulting accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for three months. For their conviction under Section 324
IPC, each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
failing which the defaulting accused shall suffer simple
imprisonment for two months. The compensation as well as
the fine amount shall be deposited within two months from
today, failing which the defaulting accused shall undergo the
CRL.R.P. No.1817/2008 -:5:-
default sentence, as indicated above.
In the result, this revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as
above.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
css/