IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1816 of 2008()
1. SATHEESH @ SATHEESAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Cr.R.P.No. 1816 of 2008
===================
Dated:06.06.2008
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. 364 of 2005
on the file of the J.F.C.M-1, Peerumedu for offences punishable
under Section 324 IPC challenges the conviction entered and the
sentence passed against him.
2. The case of the prosecution an be summarised as
follows:
On 10.09.05, at 5.45 p.m. at Odamedu Murikkadi in Kumily
village, in front of the shop of one Tomy, due to privious
animosity towards PW1 -Raju, the accused voluntarily caused
hurt to PW1 by hitting with a stone on both sides of his head
causing injuries on the forehead above the right eye-brow and
on the scalp above pinna of the left ear. The accused has
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned
Crl.R.P.No.1816/2008 -:2:-
offence, 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 96 and a shirt as MO1.
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 17.10.07 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him to simple
imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and
on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the
Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, the lower appellate court as per
judgment dated 31.01.08 confirmed the conviction entered and
the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this
Revision.
Crl.R.P.No.1816/2008 -:3:-
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 interest justice will
be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay an amount of
Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) as
compensation to PW1 under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C and on default
to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall suffer simple
Crl.R.P.No.1816/2008 -:4:-
imprisonment for two months . The compensation amount shall
be deposited before the trial court within two months from today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
V.Ramkumar, Judge.
sj