IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1028 of 1997()
1. SELVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
===================
Crl.R.P. No. 1028 of 1997
====================
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008.
O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who were the accused in C.C.
No.114 of 1991 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-
III, Palakkad for offences punishable under Sections 447, 341
and 325 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the altered conviction
under Sections 447, 341 and 323 r/w Section 34 IPC recorded by
the lower appellate court and the sentence imposed by the said
court.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:
On 12.10.1990, at about 6.30 p.m., the two accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention to wreak
vengeance on PW1, for abusing the daughter-in-law of PW1,
unlawfully trespassed into the house of PW1 at Elappully village
in Kovilpalayam. A1 restrained PW1 and A2 fisted on the face of
PW1 on account of which two teeth of PW1 fell down and he was
injured. The accused have thereby committed offences
CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :2:
punishable under Sections 447, 341 and 325 r/w Section 34 IPC.
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 10
witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 and got marked 5 documents as Exts.
P1 to P5 and two teeth as MO1 series.
4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the
accused was 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 08.07.1993 found the revision petitioners guilty of the
offences and sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment for
six months under Section 325 IPC and simple imprisonment for
one month each under Sections 341 and 447 IPC. The sentences
were directed to run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the
CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :3:
revision petitioners as Crl. Appeal No. 97 of 1993 before the
Sessions Court, Palakkad, the First Additional Sessions Judge as
per judgment dated 06.10.1997 altered the conviction under
Section 325 to Section 323 IPC and sentenced each of them to
simple imprisonment for two months under Section 323 IPC.
The sentence imposed with regard to the other offences was
confirmed. 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 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
CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :4:
the said conviction. I am of the view that interests 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 each of them is sentenced to
undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five
hundred only) under Section 323 IPC payable to the legal heirs of
PW1 who is no more. For the conviction under Sections 341 and
447 IPC, each of the petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) each and on default to pay
the fine, the defaulting accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for 15 days. The fine as well as compensation
shall be deposited before the trial court within one month from
today.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
CRL.R.P. NO. 1028/1997 :5:
V. RAMKUMAR, J
————————————
CRL. R.P. No. 1028 of 1997
—————————————-
3rd day of July, 2008
ORDER