The court confirmed conviction under Section 332 IPC, modifying the sentence to include financial compensation instead of imprisonment.

O R D E R

The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Chengannur, and the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (in short, ‘ IPC '), are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 22.08.1999, at about

06:45 pm, the petitioner physically assaulted PW3, a Police Constable, at Kodukulanji-Mavelikara public road. It is alleged that the petitioner had torn the shirt worn by PW3, bit his left thumb finger, pulled him down and hit on his left shoulder with a granite stone.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6, and brought on record six documents as Exts P1 to P6, and one material object as MO1. From the part of the defence, one witness was examined as DW1 to show that the petitioner was undergoing psychiatric treatment. After the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has successfully established the offence alleged against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate also held that there were no reasons to invoke Section 84 of the IPC and to afford protection of insanity to the petitioner. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict of the Trial Court before the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikara, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment of three months awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The records of the case as well as the impugned judgments rendered by the courts below would reveal that the prosecution adduced convincing evidence to establish the offence alleged against the petitioner. The courts below have rightly relied on the aforesaid evidence and proceeded with the conviction and sentence. Though the petitioner made a futile attempt to show that he was entitled for the protection of Section 84 of the IPC , the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found that there was paucity of evidence to show that the petitioner was incapable of knowing the nature and consequence of the act at the relevant time of commission of the offence. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to the offence committed by the petitioner. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to modify the sentence in such a manner that the prison term awarded to the petitioner could be avoided, if he is ready to make payment of a modest amount as compensation to PW3, the injured.

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

(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 332 IPC , are hereby confirmed.

(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner/ accused is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to PW3 under Section 357 (3) Cr.PC. (Section 395(3) BNSS) for the commission of offence under Section 332 IPC .

(iii) In default of payment of compensation as directed above, the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for a term of three months.

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender before the