The court may modify sentences based on the nature of the offence and victim's willingness for leniency, as per Sections 357(3) and 357(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pala in Crl.Appeal No.514/2008, 1^st accused preferred this criminal revision petition. The offences alleged against the revision petitioner/accused are under Sections 324 and 326 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.

2. The trial court and the appellate court convicted and sentenced the accused and imposed substantive sentence and fine.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, due to previous enmity and in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt and grievous hurt, on 06.19.1998 at about 7.30a.m., accused 1 to 3 inflicted injuries on PWs.3 and 4, mother and son and thereby the accused committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked and MOs.1 and 2 were identified. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court after a full fledged trial, convicted the 1^st accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The 1^st accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more. The 2^nd and 3^rd accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of the IPC and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

5. Impugning the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.514/2008 before the Additional District & Sessions Court, Pala. The appellate court dismissed the appeal.

6. Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused preferred this revision petition.

7. Adv.Ranjith George, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Both the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion. No interference from this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C is warranted in this matter.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is unsustainable. Both the trial court and the appellate court overlooked the serious illegalities, irregularities and improprieties. Therefore, the intervention of this Court in this matter is absolutely essential.

9. I have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties.

10. At the time of final hearing of this criminal revision petition, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that, even though he has urged several grounds in the revision memorandum, he would prefer to argue the matter only on leniency.

11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is too harsh and excessive, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.

12. It is submitted that the matter is settled between the parties. The victim/PW3 filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection in taking a lenient view, as to the sentence, in this matter. Considering the nature of offence, facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence awarded in this case can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court. However, since the substantive sentence is modified and reduced, I am of the considered view that, compensation can be ordered to be paid by the accused to the person who has suffered injury/loss by reason of the act of the accused under section 357(3) and 357(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the result,

(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(b) The substantive sentence imposed in this matter is modified and reduced