STATE OF KERALA Vs. CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The accused in C.C. No. 455 of 1960 on the file of the Sub -Magistrate's Court, Ettumanoor, was convicted under S. 324, IPC. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/ - or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The charge against him was that he beat Pw. 1 with a wooden stick on the head and hand and caused three injuries for which Pw. 1 was treated in the hospital for twelve days. The District Judge, Kottayam, on examination of the records found the fine of Rs. 10 merely nominal and wholly inadequate and reported for orders of this court under S. 438, Criminal Procedure Code, with a recommendation for enhancing the sentence.

(2.) PRIMA facie the penalty is not proportionate to the offence and the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason for the leniency. The advocate for the accused in showing cause why the sentence should not be enhanced argued for an acquittal and took me through the evidence. Both the Sub -magistrate and the District Magistrate had not adverted to the origin of the quarrel and the exchange of words between the accused and Pw. 1 which led up to the assault. Pw. 3 the eye -witness says that the first question put by the accused to Pw. 1 was "was it right that you should go to my house when myself and my father were not there, and tell my sister that you would take her away forcibly " ;. Pw. 1 then retorted by saying "What if I did say so " ;. So saying he went near the accused and caught hold of the accused's cloth and it was then that the actual beating by the accused took place. This version is not controverted and Pw. 3 is believed in toto by the Sub -Magistrate.

(3.) I ,therefore,do not feel that it is a fit case for enhancement of sentence.The learned Sub -Magistrate's order is confirmed and the reference is answered accordingly.But the learned Sub -Magistrate may be told that when leniency is shown in the matter of sentence reasons for the leniency have to be stated in the judgment.