This criminal revision petition challenged convictions for house trespass and voluntarily causing hurt under the IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and refusing to interfere with the sentence of fine.
Revision petition dismissed; conviction and sentence of fine upheld; no interference with the judgment below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2007 / 10TH SRAVANA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2502 of 2007()
-----------------------------CRA.632/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.337/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
MANIYILAPARAMBIL VEEDU, -DO- -DO-.
BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRIL.K.S.SIVAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 2502 of 2007**
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01-08-2007**
ORDER
Revision petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. 337 of 2001 on the file of the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam for offences punishable under Sections 452, 294 (b), 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed concurrently by the courts below against them.
Crl.R.P. 2502 of 2007 -:2:-
framed against them by the court below, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 10 and got marked 11 documents as Exts.P1 to P11 and two material objects as MOs 1 to 2.
Crl.R.P. 2502 of 2007 -:3:-
any of the accused so as to justify the conviction under Section 452 I.P.C. I cannot agree. The occurrence took place on the varandah of the house. The conviction has been concurrently recorded by the courts below after an evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. The said conviction cannot be interfered with by this Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction in which a re-appraisal of the oral evidence is not warranted. The conviction was, therefore, rightly recorded against the revision petitioners.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
ani.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below erred in convicting the revision petitioners for house trespass and voluntarily causing hurt.
Whether the sentence of fine alone imposed on the revision petitioners is excessive or disproportionate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1. RATHEESH, 2. MATHEW, 3. RATHEESH
STATE OF KERALA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
