Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE10H DAY OF OCTOBER201318TH ASWINA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 271 of 2012 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRL.A. 663/2003 of ADDITIONAL DISTRIST AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CC6972003 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM. REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- PRASAD, AGED43 S/O. SADASIVAN, CHARUVILA THAZHATHU VEEDU, POOYAPPALLI MURI, POOYAPPALLI VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.S.SIDHAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1010-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of October, 2013 ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.697/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottarakkara. He was prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 447 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code on a police report. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the said offences and convicted thereunder. Aggrieved by the conviction, though the revision petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal No.663/2006 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-II, Kollam, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence, as such, Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
2. :- without any interference. The concurrent findings of conviction and sentence are assailed on various grounds in this Revision Petition.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on account of previous enmity towards PW1, in connection with an election in the SNDP Yogam, on 12.5.2003 at 6.15 p.m. at Chepparamukku, the accused, with the intention and preparation of causing grievous injuries to PW1, wrongfully restrained him and his wife while coming on a motor cycle and, thereafter, inflicted blows on him by using his chappels. Thereafter, PWs 1 and 2 returned to their house and while PW1 was sitting in the sit out of his house, the accused criminally trespassed into his courtyard and caught hold of him and turned his right hand and thereby caused dislocation of his right shoulder. The accused also inflicted a blow on P.W.2 by using his chappals. The accused also broken the window glasses of the house of P.W.1 by pelting stones causing damage to the tune of `500/- to him and thereby he committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned sections. Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
3. :- 3. To prove the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined in defence.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the court below concurrently failed to appreciate the facts and evidence on record in its correct perspective. The court below ought to have considered the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 as not trustworthy. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt so as to enter into the conviction. The court below ought to have discarded the interested testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6. According to him, the judgment under challenge is not justified under law.
5. P.Ws.1 to 5 and 6 were the occurrence witnesses. P.Ws.1 is the de facto complainant as well as an injured and P.Ws.2 is the wife of P.W.1 and she is also an injured. P.W.1 - the de facto complainant, would state that on 12/5/03 at about 6.15 p.m., he, along with his wife P.W.2, was going from their house on his motorcycle to the house of his brother-in-law residing near Maruthanpally temple. When Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
4. :- they reached in front of the shop of Prabhakaran (P.W.5), the accused stopped his motorcycle under intoxication and gave three blows on his back with a chappal. Then the accused threatened that he and his wife will not be allowed to sleep in his house peacefully. When the people assembled, the accused went away from there. Shocked by the said act of the accused, he stopped the journey and returned to his nearby house. He parked the motorcycle in the car porch of his house and sitting in the sit out. Immediately, the accused trespassed into the courtyard of his dwelling house by push opening the gate and came near to him. He came to the courtyard and directed the accused to go outside. At that time, the accused caught hold of him and turned his right hand causing dislocation of his right shoulder causing severe pain. He cried aloud. His wife came and intervened. At that time, the accused also gave blows on her with his chappals. On hearing the commotion, people assembled. At that time, the accused came out of the compound and pelted brick pieces towards his house and breaking glass of window and window shade damage to the tune of `500/- to Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
5. :- him. He identified M.Os.1 to 3 broken glass pieces, brick pieces and broken decoration of the windows before the court. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital and undergone treatment there for two days; but his hand was bandaged for 45 days. He would further state that he was a candidate for the election of the office bearers of the SNDP Branch No.972. His opposite candidate Raveendran was a close friend and relative of the accused. The accused attacked him as he contested against the said Raveendran in the election. Thus, his candidature in the SNDP election against the close relative of the accused provoked him so as to commit the above offences.
6. P.W.1 has given evidence in consonance with Ext.P1 First Information Statement and his oral evidence before the court gets assurance from Ext.P1 First Information Statement which was given immediately after the occurrence. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 who is none other than his wife who accompanied him at the time of occurrence. She would state that P.W.1 was attacked by the accused, as he deposed in the evidence, Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
6. :- while they were going towards their relative's house and thereafter they returned home and while sitting in the courtyard, the accused came back and further attacked both of them. The accused put blows with his chappals on her body also. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 gets further corroboration from the evidence of P.W.6 - an independent witness. P.W.6 deposed that he saw the incident on 12/5/03 at about 6.15 p.m. and that the accused trespassed into the property of P.W.1 and caught hold of him and turned the right hand of P.W.1 and also inflicted blows on P.W.2 by using his chappals. He also deposed that the accused pelted stones to the window glass of the house of P.W.1. P.W.5 was also examined as occurrence witness. He had turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is further corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6. - the independent witness. P.W.8 - Doctor, who treated the injured immediately after the occurrence and he issued Ext.P6 wound certificate. Ext.P6 wound certificate proves the injuries and dislocation of the right shoulder as stated by P.W.1. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6 and Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
7. :- 8 gets corroboration from Exts.P1 to P6 contemporaneously prepared by the police officers who registered the crime and investigated the crime. Though the accused made an attempt to substantiate his contention by examining D.Ws.1 and 2, but the court below concurrently found that the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 are mutually contrary and the accused has no such contention as deposed by D.Ws.1 and 2 while examining P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 before the court. According to the trial court, the prosecution succeeded in proving the offences as alleged by P.,Ws.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. To sum up, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 8 coupled with Ext.P6 wound certificate and Exts.P1 to P6 unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused alone and the court below concurrently found that the evidence bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the appreciation of evidence, as stated above, I am inclined to reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and I do so. Consequently, I confirm the verdict of guilty and conviction thereunder. Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
8. :- 7. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate with the nature and gravity of the offence. The revision petitioner is aged 43 years and he is a manual labourer as well as the only bread winner of his family. If he is incarcerated for a long period, the entire family will be put in hardship. The learned counsel further submits that he is not involved in any other offence and this is the solitary incident. It is true that the prison term can be imposed to secure the interests of the deterrence; but deterency in a case like this does not necessarily depend upon the length of the term that the offender spends behind the bar.
8. In view of the above submissions, I am of the opinion that the principles of reformation in the matter of sentence can be applied to the instant case also. An opportunity to lead a refined life, after a short term of sentence, is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. But the revision petitioner is liable to compensate the injured by way of giving sufficient Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
9. :- compensation for the loss of his reputation and dignity. Thus, on a proper balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I am inclined to reduce and modify the length of prison term, but in lieu of it, the revision petitioner is liable to pay sufficient compensation to P.W.1, the victim, who suffered pain, mental agony and loss of reputation. Therefore, in supersession, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court under the impugned judgment will stand reduced and modified as follows: The revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each under Secs.341, 323, 427 and 447 of the IPC. Further, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Sec.325 of the IPC and also to pay a compensation of `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to P.W.1 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The compensation can be paid directly or by depositing before the trial court. In the latter case, the trial court shall issue Crl.R.P. No. 271 of 2012 -:
10. :- notice to P.W.1, so as to receive the compensation and in the former case, the revision petitioner shall produce sufficient proof before the trial court to show payment of compensation. The trial court is directed to execute the sentence forthwith. This revision petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge