In a prosecution alleging the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 506(i) IPC in C.C.No.142/2008 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkencherry, the revision petitioner herein was convicted under Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each under Sections 323 IPC and 506(i) IPC.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Thrissur with Crl.A No.816/2010. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction under Section 506(i) IPC, but confirmed the conviction under Section 323 IPC. However, the sentence was modified, reducing the jail sentence to simple imprisonment for five days, and also imposing a fine sentence of ₹1,000/- under Section 323 IPC. Now the accused is before this Court, challenging the legality and propriety of the sentence under Section 323 IPC. The prosecution case is that at about 1 pm. on 26.2.2008 the revision petitioner assaulted a Bank Manager at his cabin, and inflicted some simple injuries.
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor, and on a perusal of the case records, I find that this revision can be disposed of, with some modification in sentence. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the conviction made by the courts below under Section 323 IPC. The prosecution has well proved the offence by the evidence of PW1 to PW3. PW1 is the defacto complainant, who sustained injuries, and the others are staff of the Bank, who witnessed the incident. The incident of assault alleged by the prosecution well stands proved by their evidence, and I find no scope for interference in the findings of the court below, on facts. Ext.P3 wound certificate will show that the defacto complainant had sustained only some tenderness on the left side of the chest, and a small abrasion on the forehead.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought some modification in sentence, in case the court is not inclined to interfere in conviction. Of course, the conviction will have to be sustained because the case stands well proved on facts. However, I feel that the sentence can be modified and the jail sentence can be reduced to the minimum possible under the law. However, some justice will have to be done to the defacto complainant who sustained injuries. Direction to pay fine as compensation will not do justice to him because Rs.1,000/- cannot be treated as the adequate amount of compensation. Accordingly, I feel that the jail sentence can be set aside, and instead the revision petitioner can be directed to make payment of a compensation of ₹5,000/- to the defacto complainant. With this modification in sentence, this revision petition can be disposed of, without being admitted to files.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as follows:
a) The conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 323 IPC is confirmed.
b) The sentence will stand modified to the effect that the jail sentence will stand reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court.
c) The fine sentence imposed by the appellate court under Section 323 IPC is set aside and the revision petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of ₹5,000/- to the defacto complainant (PW1) under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C
d) In case of default, it will carry jail sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
e) The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within one month from this date to serve out the sentence, and to make payment of compensation voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence and to recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab