Court confirmed prior convictions while modifying the sentence for compensatory justice under Section 451 IPC.

ORDER

This revision is directed against the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court I, Mavelikkara, in Crl.Appeal No.106 of 2002 on 11.02.2005. The aforesaid appeal was preferred by the petitioners herein against their conviction and sentence awarded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur, for the commission of offences under Sections 451 , 294(b) and 506(i) IPC read with Section 34 . The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine Rs.2000/- each for the offence under Section 451 and Rigorous Imprisonment for two months each for the offence under Section 294 (b) and 506(i) . In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Mavelikkara, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate for the offence under (b) and upheld the conviction for the offence under and 506(i) . However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under , and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 506 (i) . Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, the petitioners are before this Court with this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the additional 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. The Trial Court relied on the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW6 and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P7 for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the offences under Sections 451 , 294(b) and 506(i) IPC alleged against the petitioners. The evidence adduced by PW1 to PW4, who are the occurrence witnesses, were found to be natural and reliable by the learned Magistrate. The Appellate Court found that the aforesaid evidence is not sufficient to bring out the ingredients of Section 294 (b) . According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the place where the incident happened was admittedly private premises and hence the essential ingredients of utterance of obscene words in a public place, which are necessary to constitute the offence under (b) , are lacking. As regards the other evidence tendered by PW1 to PW4, the learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate that the aforesaid evidence clearly established the offences alleged against the petitioners. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the above concurrent findings of the courts below relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Needless to say, the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under and 506(i) cannot be interfered with in a revision proceedings by this Court.

4. However, it appears that the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court directing Simple Imprisonment of the petitioners for a period of one month for the offence under Section 451 IPC , is a little bit harsh, which requires to be modified.

5. Having regard to the nature of the offences found to have been committed by the petitioners, I am of the view that the Simple Imprisonment for one month awarded by the Appellate Court for the offence under Section 451 IPC is liable to be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-

each to the de facto complainant/PW1.

In the result, the revision stands allowed in part as follows:

1) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 451 and

506(i) IPC are hereby confirmed.

2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the Appellate Cour