The court confirmed the conviction under IPC sections while modifying the sentence to solely a fine.

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed against the judgment dated

12.07.2018 in CC No. 339/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kozhikode and the judgment dated 11.10.2019 in Crl.A.No.278/2018 of the Addl. Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The Sub Inspector of police chargesheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 448, 341, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that on 29.02.2016 at

8.45 pm, the accused's son came to the shop of the defacto complainant at Chelannur and pressed oranges displayed in the shop for sale. When the complainant questioned this, the son of the accused telephoned and wanted the accused to come to the defacto complainant's shop. Thereafter, the accused who came to the site, trespassed into the shop, dragged the defacto complainant to the veranda of the shop and voluntarily caused hurt to him by beating with hand and also hitting with vehicle's key. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7. Exts.P1 to P7 are the exhibits. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused is guilty only under Secs. 448 and 323 IPC . The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Secs.448 r/w 34 and he is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Sec. 323 r/w 34 . Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The appellate court considered the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The revision petitioner concurrently found guilty by the trial court and the appellate court under Secs. 448 and 323 IPC . The trial court appreciated the prosecution evidence in detail and thereafter, found that the petitioner is guilty under Secs. 323 and 448 . The appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and thereafter, found that the conviction imposed by the trial court is perfect and there is nothing to interfere with the same.

6. The jurisdiction of this Court to invoke against the concurrent finding of guilt invoking the revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there are illegality, irregularity or impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt. After anxiously considering the impugned judgment and the documents available, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction entered by the trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court under Secs. 448 and 323 IPC .

7. The next question to be decided is whether the sentence imposed is excessive. As far as Sec. 448 is concerned, the punishment that can be imposed is one year imprisonment or fine or both. Similarly, as far as Sec.323 IPC is concerned, the punishment that can be imposed is one year imprisonment or fine of Rs.1000/- or both. From the above, it is clear that the imprisonment is not mandatory. The alleged incident in this case happened on 29.02.2016. At this distance of time, I think the petitioner need not be send to jail. Moreover, the incident happened at the spur of the moment. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the maximum fine amount under secs. 448 and 323 can be imposed and the substantive sentence can be set aside.

Therefore, this revision is allowed in part in the following manner :

1) The conviction imposed by the trial court, which is confirmed by the appellate court under Secs. 448 and 323 IPC is confirmed.

2) The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under Secs. 448 and 323