IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 983 OF 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2018 IN Crl.A NO.172 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT THE JUDGMNET DATED 23.04.2014 IN CC NO.636 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I ,VARKALA. REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS: 1 BASHEER S/O. ABDUL RAHEEM, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, CHENCHERIKONAM, VALIYAVILA MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 2 MEHARUNIZA D/O. RAHILA BEEVI, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, CHENCHERIKONAM, VALIYAVILA MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. 3 RAMLA D/O. FATHIMA BEEVI, RAMSY MANZIL, CHENCHERIKONAM, VALIYAVILA MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.RENJITH GEORGE-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.3.2025, THE COURT ON 27.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 2 2025:KER:26783 M.B.SNEHALATHA, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th March 2025 O R D E R The revision petitioners/accused call in question the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in Crl.A.No.172/2014 of Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram whereby they were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. 2. Prosecution case is that on 29.4.2009 at around 8.30 pm accused 1 to 4 who are the siblings of the defacto complainant criminally trespassed into the residence of the defacto complainant, manhandled her and A1 stabbed her with a knife and caused injuries on her hand. They also committed mischief by destroying the household appliances and caused loss of ₹3,000/- to PW1. Accused thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. In this judgment their rank is mentioned as shown in the final report filed by the investigating officer. A2 to A4 in the charge Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 3 2025:KER:26783 sheet/revision petitioners abjured the guilt and faced trial. 4. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P8. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found A2 to 4 in the final report/revision petitioners herein guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448 and 506(1) of IPC and each accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the said offences. 5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A2 to A4/revision petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.172/2014 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In appeal, their conviction under Section 506(i) IPC was set aside. The conviction for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC was confirmed and the sentence was modified and A2 to A4/revision petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- each for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. 6. A2 to A4/revision petitioners assail the judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to show that they caused any hurt to PW1; that the trial court and the Sessions Court have not properly analysed the evidence; that there are material Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 4 2025:KER:26783 contradictions in the versions of defacto complainant; that her oral interested testimony do not receive any corroboration from Ext.P5 wound certificate. Thus the accused 2 to 4/revision petitioners seek to set aside the conviction and sentence against them for the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. 7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly analysed the evidence and there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. It has come out in evidence that A2 to A4 are siblings of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant who was examined as PW1 has categorically testified that on 29.4.2009 at around 8.30 pm, accused 1 to 4 criminally trespassed into her house; that A2 poured chilli powder on her face; that A1 inflicted injury on her hand with a knife. 9. PW7 who is an eyewitness to the incident has also supported her version. There are no reasons to disbelieve the versions of PW1 and PW7 regarding the incident. Their versions are credible and trustworthy. Ext.P6 scene mahazar would reveal that the scene of occurrence is inside the residence of PW1. Exrt.P5 is the wound certificate. It would show that PW1 had undergone Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 5 2025:KER:26783 treatment at the hospital for the injuries sustained by her. The evidence on record would show that accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW1 and manhandled PW1 and caused hurt to her. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has analysed the evidence in its correct perspective and I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding that A2 to A4 are guilty of the offences under Sections 448 and 323 IPC. 11. Now let us see whether the sentence awarded against the accused 2 to 4/revision petitioners needs any interference by this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused pleaded leniency in the matter of sentence and contended that the A2 is the breadwinner of the family and therefore the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded for the offence under Section 448 IPC may be reduced to fine. The learned counsel further submitted that A2 to A4 are the siblings of PW1 and therefore they may not be sent to jail for an incident which took place 16 years ago between the family members. 13. The sentence awarded as modified in Crl.Appeal reads as follows: Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 6 2025:KER:26783 “Appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months each for offence u/s 448 IPC. They are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence u/s.323 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each (sic).” 14. Punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 323 IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 15. The maximum fine which can be imposed for the offence under Section 323 IPC is only ₹1000/-. But the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a fine of ₹3,000/- each for the offence under Section 323 IPC. The fine imposed for the offence under Section 323 IPC exceeded the maximum limit prescribed by the statute for the said offence and it is unsustainable in law. 16. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the substantive sentence of imprisonment of two months for the offence under Section 448 IPC can be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of ₹1000/- each. 17. In the result, revision petition is allowed in part as follows: a) Conviction of the revision petitioners for Crl.R.P.No.983 of 2018 7 2025:KER:26783 the offence Under Section 448 and 323 of IPC stands confirmed. b) The sentence is modified as follows: (i) For the offence under section 448 r/w Section 34 of IPC revision petitioners are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of ₹1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month each. ii) For the offence under section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC the revision petitioners are sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month each. iii) The fine amount if realised shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. The trial court shall take steps to execute the sentence. Registry shall transmit the records to the trial court forthwith. Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE ab