K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.

The accused in C.C.No.254 of 1990 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Attingal is the revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S.354 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six moths. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner filed Crl.A.No.77 of 1993 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned District Judge also concurred with the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging those concurrent findings.

2, The facts necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Petition are as follows:-- The accused and the de facto complaint are relatives. The de facto complainant is a housewife, aged about 42 years on the date of the incident. She is having two children. One of the sons is physically handicapped. The accused used to tease and ridicule the physically handicapped son of the de facto complainant. The son complained to the de facto complainant about the behavior of the accused. She came to the house of the accused and told the mother of the accused to forbid the accused from teasing the physically handicapped son. When the accused came to know about this, he became infuriated. In the evening on 8.2.1990, the de facto complainant went to the Ration Shop to purchase Ration articles. She purchased articles and was going back to her house. At about 6.30 p.m., she reached near the house of the accused. The accused came from behind and caught hold of her by hair and fisted her on her back, chest and head. He also uttered words “how she dared to make a complaint about his behavior towards her physically handicapped son to his mother”. He also exhorted that “the beating was the result of her complaint”. She cried aloud. People in the nearby places rushed to the place of occurrence. Then the revision petitioner ran away from the place of occurrence. She went to her house and thereafter went to the police station at 9.45 P.M. on that day and gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement. The Sub Inspector of Police registered Ext.P4 FIR under S.354 of Indian Penal Code and forwarded the same to the Court. He conducted further investigation and filed the final report alleging, that the revision petitioner committed the offence punishable under S.354 of Indian Penal Code.

3. When the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate, the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him. He denied the allegations. On the side of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined. Exts.P1 to P4 proved and marked. After the prosecution evidence was over, the revision petitioner was questioned under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the incriminating circumstances against him brought out during evidence. According to him, his sister and himself were attacked by the son of the de facto complainant and others. He was taken to the Medical College Hospital and treated there. On the side of accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exts.D1 to D5 proved and marked. The learned Magistrate after trial found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S.354 IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Those conviction and sentence were affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Those judgments are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition.

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner was the first offender and he is now aged more than 55 years, this Court called for a report from the District Probation Officer to find out whether the petitioner can be released under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. A report was received and thereafter the matter was heard.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that even if the entire case put forward by the prosecution is accepted as such, it will not disclose any offence under S.354 of Indian Penal Code. It will only pr