IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 77 of 2009()
1. RAVEENDRAN @ ORUMONKUTTAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :18/02/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
`````````````````
Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009
and
81 of 2009
`````````````````
Dated:18-02-2009
O R D E R
In these revisions filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401
Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.365 of 2004
on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Haripad for an offence punishable
under Sec. 323 I.P. C. challenge the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against them by the courts below concurrently for
for the above said offence .
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 17-5-2004 at about 5.30 p.m. when P.W.1 was coming on
his motor bike he saw the two accused persons at Oottuparambu
railway level cross. PW1 demanded A1 to pay the money which he
owed to P.W.1. Suddenly A1 picked up a granite stone from the
railway track and hit on the face of P.W1. He fell down. A2 fisted
on his chest. The above acts were committed by the accused in
Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009
and 81 of 2009 -:2:-
prosecution of their common intention to cause hurt to P.W.1.
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 six witnesses as P.Ws 1
to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5.
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 26th February, 2007 found both the revision petitioners guilty
of the offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them
to simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs.
1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month. A sum of Rs. 500/- was directed to
give P.W1 as compensation. Hence, these Revisions.
Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009
and 81 of 2009 -:3:-
6. Reports of the District Probation Officer, Alppuzha
show that there has been no previous conviction for both the
petitioners. He has also recommended the release of the
petitioners on probation. Under these circumstances, I am inclined
to extend the benevolent provisions of Sec. 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners shall
be released on probation under Sec. 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, for a period of one year on their executing a bond
to the satisfaction of the trial court. They shall also pay a sum of
Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to P.W.1 under Section 5 of the
Probation of Offenders Act. Revision petitioners shall appear
before the trial court on 16-3-2009 and execute the bond. They
shall also deposit the compensation amount on that day. The
compensation shall be paid to the P.W.1 on the same day.
Revision Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009.
Sd/- V.Ramkumar, Judge.
/true copy/
Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009
and 81 of 2009 -:4:-
ani.