IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2854 of 2008() 1. YAHUTTY @ ASHRAF, S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :22/08/2008 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Crl.R.P. No.2854 of 2008 ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. O R D E R
In this revision filed under Section 397 read with Section
401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner who is the accused in C.C.
No.443/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Tirur for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 326 of
I.P.C challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed
against him for the aforementioned offences.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
On account of the enmity which the accused was
nurturing against the family of PW1, on 14.1.2002 at about
10 a.m the accused criminally trespassed into the courtyard
of the house in which PW1 and her family members were
residing and voluntarily caused grevious hurt PW1 by hitting
her on the head with MO1 axe. The accused has thereby
committed the aforementioned offences.
3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge
framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned
offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in
support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined ten
witnesses as PWs 1 to 10 and got marked five documents as
Exts.P1 to P5 and an axe as MO1.
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 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 28.11.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the
offences charged against him. For the conviction under Section
447 IPC, he was sentenced to S.I for one month. For the
conviction under Section 326 I.P.C, he was sentenced to S.I for
two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/= and on default of
payment of fine, to suffer S.I for three months. The
substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. On
appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as Crl.A.No.482/2005
before the Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri, as per the
judgment dated 14.7.2008 confirmed the conviction entered
against the revision petitioner but modified the sentence by
reducing the S.I to one year under Section 326 I.P.C. Hence,
6. Even though 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 interests of justice will
be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed
hereinafter. Accordingly, for his conviction under Section 326
I.P.C the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
compensation of Rs.15,000/= to PW1, the injured under
Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. For his conviction under Section 447
I.P.C, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/= and on default of payment of fine to suffer S.I for 4
months. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation as well
as the fine before the trial court within 45 days from today.
On default of payment of compensation, the petitioner shall
suffer S.I. for three months.
In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the
conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008.
rv CRL.R.P.NO.2854/08 . 5 cl