The court confirmed the conviction under Section 323 IPC but modified the sentence to a fine based on the elapsed time since the offence.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Sulthan Bathery, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc II), Kalpetta, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and the modified sentence imposed by the Appellate Court, are under challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that on 15.10.2003, at about 4.10. pm, the accused criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant, and inflicted voluntary hurt upon her by pushing her aside and beating with hands. Accordingly, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kenichira, had filed the Final Report before the learned Magistrate alleging the commission of offences under Sections 447 and 323 IPC .

3. After the completion of trial with the examination of 7 witnesses as PW1 to PW7, and the marking of 5 documents as Exts.P1 to P5, and also after appreciating the evidence adduced by the accused through the oral testimony of DW1 and the documents marked as Ext.D1, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 447 IPC , and convicted him for the offence under Section 323 . He was accordingly sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

4. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc II), Kalpetta, confirmed the above conviction, but reduced the sentence to Simple Imprisonment for one month with a further direction to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision.

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

7. The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to arrive at a finding that the prosecution had successfully established the allegation that the petitioner had inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1. The Appellate Court has made a reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence, and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court.

8. On going through the records of the case, and the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, I am of the view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below, with regard to the commission of offence under Section

323 IPC by the petitioner. However, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, and also the lapse of about 22 years from the date of commission of offence, I am of the view that the prison term awarded by the courts below, is to be excluded from the punishment.

In the result, the revision is disposed of with the above modification in the sentence, as follows:

1) The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 323 IPC , are hereby confirmed.

2) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence under Section 323 IPC .

3) In default of payment of the fine as directed above, the petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of one month.

4) The Trial Court shall verify whether the petitioner had already deposited the fine in accordance with the direction of this Court in Crl.M.A.No.4401/2007 on 11.04.2007, at the time of admitting the revision.

5) If the fine is deposited by the petitioner in accordance with the aforesaid direction, then the Trial Court shall close the further proceedings against the petitioner.

The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order, along with the case records, to the Trial Court forthwith.

sd/