IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2214 of 2008()
1. SANKARAN, S/O.CHINNAN,
... Petitioner
2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHINNAN,
3. NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O.CHINNAN,
4. PARU, W/O.SANKARAN, PULLEPARAMBU VEEDU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.GOVINDANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
V.RAMKUMAR, J.
======================================
CRL.R.P. NO.2214 OF 2008
======================================
Dated this the 4th day of July 2008
ORDER
Petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.672/2001 on the file of the JFCM II, Palakkad for
offences punishable under Sections 447, 354, 323 and 324
read with section 34 IPC, challenge the conviction entered
and sentence passed against them for offences punishable
under Sections 447, 323 and 324 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 30.5.2001 at 8.30 p.m., all the 4 accused persons,
in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into
the residential compound of PW1 (Vasu) due to previous
enmity. The first accused caught hold of PW1’s neck and
pushed him and the second accused beat him with a stick.
The first accused had also caught hold of PW2(Komalam)
by the hair and thereby outraged her modesty. Accused
CRRP 2214/2008 2
Nos.3 and 4 also beat PWs.2 and 3 and PWs.1 to 3 thus
sustained injuries.
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 PWs.1 to 8 and got
marked 7 documents as Exts.P1 to P7 and one stick as
M.O.1.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence,
accused were questioned under Section 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 13/12/2004, found the revision petitioners
CRRP 2214/2008 3
guilty of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and
447 IPC and sentenced each of them to simple
imprisonment for two months under Section 447 IPC and 6
months under Sections 323 and 324 IPC each. They were
acquitted for the rest of the offences. On appeal preferred
by the revision petitioners as Crl.Appeal No.10/2005 on the
file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad, the IInd Additional
Sessions Judge, as per judgment dated 31.5.2008,
confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to
simple imprisonment for one month for each of the three
offences. Hence, 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
CRRP 2214/2008 4
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 petitioners. Having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think
that the revision petitioners deserve penal servitude by way
of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view
that interest of justice will be adequately met by imposing a
sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the
sentence imposed on the revision petitioners is set aside
and instead, for their conviction under Section 447 IPC,
each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and on
default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15
days. For the conviction under Section 323 IPC, each of the
revision petitioners is sentenced to imprisonment till rising
of court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and on
default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for
one month. For their conviction under Section 324 IPC,
CRRP 2214/2008 5
each of the revision petitioners is sentenced to
imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month. From out of the total fine
amount, a sum of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to PW1 and a
sum of Rs.500/- each shall be paid to PWs.2 and 3. The
petitioners shall deposit the fine amount within two months
from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming
the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed
as above.
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008
V.RAMKUMAR,
JUDGE
css/