Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 70/2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC)-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC 49/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1,2 &5: 1 AJITH KUMAR @ AJI SARASWATHI VILASOM,, KIZHAKKUM KARA, 2 RAMESAN SARASWATHI VILASOM, KIZHAKKUM KARA, 3 SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR, MULAVILAKATHU VEEDU, SOORYA NAGAR, PEROORKADA VILLAGE, BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
It is against the concurrent judgment of conviction rendered by both the trail court and the First Appellate Court below for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 323, and 324 r/w Section 149 IPC, and the
order of sentence, the accused No.1, 2 and 5
came up in revision.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the victims are minor in nature and may not be sufficient to
bring home the offence under Section 324 IPC. But, going by the injuries sustained,it is clear that there are several attacks, and independent blows on the victims, which are spoken to by the Doctor who attended the victim and had drawn the wound certificate. The PW1 victim and had given oral evidence, which stood corroborated by the oral evidence of the PW2, the Doctor, and the wound certificate drawn besides the FIS and FIR, which were registered without any inordinate delay. Hence, the concurrent findings of the
judgment of conviction for the abovesaid offences
deserve no interference. The sentence was substantially modified by the First Appellate Court. By taking into account the nature of alleged incident and the injuries alleged to
have been sustained and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is fit and proper to reduce the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 324 IPC by ordering a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand imprisonment for four months, for the offence under Section 323 IPC a fine amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only)each, for the offence under Section 143 IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 147 IPC a fine amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only)each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, and for the offence under Section 148 IPC a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand imprisonment for two months each. The respective sentence will stand modified accordingly. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part by modifying the sentence as above. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV