IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 218 of 2004(B)
1. T.M. SELVENDRAN ALIAS SELVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JAMES KURIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009
O R D E R
This Revision Petition is filed by the accused in
C.C.421 of 1998 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Court-III,
Kottayam. C.C.421 of 1998 is a case charge sheeted by
the Sub Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Kottayam
against the accused under Sections 447, 324 and 326 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. On
15.11.1998 at about 10.15 a.m., while PW1 was digging
his property on the northern side of his house for
cultivation, the accused came there and obstructed him
saying that it was the pathway for him. When PW1
continued his work, the accused attacked him by using
MO1, handle of a spade. When PW2, the wife of PW1,
intervened, the accused assaulted her also by MO1.
3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the
prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3
Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004
2
were marked. MOs. 1 and 2 were identified. No evidence was
adduced from the side of the defence.
4. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence,
found the accused guilty under Section 324 I.P.C. only and he
was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of six
months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo
S.I. for one month.
5. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused filed
Crl.A.No.430 of 2002 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam,
which was allowed in part. The conviction of the accused under
Section 324 I.P.C. was confirmed, but the sentence was
converted into a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo S.I.
for a period of three months. Against that judgment the accused
filed this revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is not questioning the conviction under
Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004
3
Section 324 I.P.C. and that the only prayer is to reduce the fine,
as the accused has no ability to pay Rs.5,000/-
8. The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. He
swears that on 15.4.1998 at about 10 a.m., while he was
carrying on agricultural operations in his property behind the
house, the accused came there and there was an altercation
between them with regard to the right of the pathway and the
accused beat him with the handle of a spade on his left elbow
and forehead. When PW2, the wife of PW1, intervened, the
accused assaulted her also. PW2 also gives more or less the
same version regarding the occurrence. PW4 is an independent
eye witness, who also supports the prosecution case. Ext.P3 is
the wound certificate showing that PW1 sustained only minor
injuries in the occurrence. Since the testimony of PWs. 1, 2 and
4 is reliable and corroborating each other on material particulars
and duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the view
that the Magistrate Court and the Appellate Court are fully
justified in convicting the accused under Section 324 I.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004
4
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
accused and PW1 are neighbours and close relatives and that the
accused has no ability to pay the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-
Therefore the fine may be reduced.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the ends of
justice would be met by reducing the fine amount as Rs.1,000/-
and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.
11. This Revision Petition is accordingly allowed in part.
The conviction of the accused in C.C. 421 of 1998 on the file of
the J.F.C.M. Court-III, Kottayam under Section 324 I.P.C. is
confirmed. But the sentence is modified and the accused is
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I.
for a period of one month. The learned Magistrate is directed to
execute the modified sentence.
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
tm Judge
Crl.R.P.No. 218 of 2004
5