Modification of sentences to allow compensation in lieu of imprisonment in criminal matters.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in CC No.182/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra. They faced trial in the said case for the commission of offences under Sections 448 , 427, 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 . The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 448 , Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 427 , Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months under Section 323 and Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months under Section 324 , with a direction that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. In the appeal filed by the petitioners herein before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, as Crl.Appeal No.133/2005, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court under . As regards the offences under , 323 and 324 , the conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court. However, the Appellate Court modified the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for 1 month and fine Rs.500/- under , fine Rs.500/- under and Simple Imprisonment for one month and fine Rs.1000/- under . It is the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Court dated 24.02.2006, which is under challenge in this revision filed by the accused in the said case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The prosecution case is that on 28.12.2002 at about 8 pm, the petitioners trespassed into the house of PW3 and inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 and PW2 by beating with hands and stick, and also by kicking them. There is the further allegation of causing mischief and damage to household articles.

4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and marked 5 documents as Exts.P1 to P5. One material object was identified as MO1. It is after the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 448 , 323, 324 and 427 IPC and awarded the sentence as mentioned above.

5. The Appellate Court, after a reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence, found that the offence under Section 427 IPC is not attracted. On going through the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, I am of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings in that judgment, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. The evidence tendered by PW1, PW2 and PW4 have been rightly appreciated by the Appellate Court for arriving at the conclusion that the offences under Sections 448 , 323 and 324 are clearly brought out.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the elapse of a period of more than two decades from the date of crime, I deem it appropriate to modify the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court in such a manner that the prison term awarded to the petitioners could be avoided if they are ready to make a payment of a modest amount as compensation to the injured. Thus, the Simple Imprisonment of one month each imposed by the Appellate Court for the offences under Sections 448 and 324 IPC is liable to be modified as imprisonment till the rising of the court with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each by the petitioners. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Section 323 . In the result, the revision stands allowed in part as follows: 1) The finding of the Appellate Court in Crl.Appeal No.133/2005, upholding the conviction for the offence under , 323 and 324 , is hereby confirmed.

2) In supersession of the sentence awarded, a consolidated sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court coupled with a direction to pay compens