Dismissed

Prahladan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2008Crl.Rev.Pet/502/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence under IPC Sections 324 and 448. The Court reduced the total imprisonment from 9 to concurrent terms and directed payment of Rs. 10,000 compensation to victims.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sentenced to concurrent rigorous imprisonment; directed to pay Rs. 10,000 compensation to victims.

Prahladan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 502 of 2000()

¶5

----------------------------CRA.382/1998 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.74/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY

¶6

REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------

¶7

PRAHLADAN, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 30, MADAKKAYIL VEEDU, KIZHUMURI KARA, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

---------------------STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M. KAMMAPPU.

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-2-2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

CRL.M.P. NOS. 2801/2000 & 650/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.502/2000

¶14

DISMISSED.

¶15

19-2-2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.

¶16

//TRUE COPY//

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶18

CRL.R.P.No.502 of 2000

¶19

Dated, 19^th February 2008.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner herein is the Ist accused in crime No.14/94 of the Ramamangalam police station for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC. After trial, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery, found that the revision petitioner/A1 alone is guilty of the offence under sections 448 and 324 of IPC and the other two accused were found not guilty and accordingly they were acquitted. On finding guilty of the offences, the Ist accused was convicted and sentence imposed against him. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner herein preferred Crl.A.No.382/98 before the Vth Addl.Sessions Court, Ernakulam. By judgment dated 29-10-2000, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and the sentence awarded against him. It is the above conviction and sentence passed by the courts below

¶22

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

against the revision petitioner is challenged in this Crl.Revision Petition.

¶25

The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant, namely, Poulose and his family residing together in Ramamangalam village and A1/revision petitioner was in inimical terms with Cletus who is the son of Poulose. Thus according to the prosecution, at about 2.30 p.m. on 9-2-1994, when PW-1 and others were sleeping inside their house, they heard somebody knocking at the door and calling aloud “Cletus”. Hearing such call, PW-1 got up and opened the door. He saw the revision petitioner/A1 and others standing in the verandah. Then the revision petitioner asked PW-1 to call Cletus. In the meanwhile, Cletus came to the Verandah. Immedately, A1 took out a sword and inflicted a cut injury on the right forearm of Cletus. Though PW-1 attempted to save Cletus, the Ist accused inflicted cut injury on the left biceps of PW1 poulose. In the meanwhile PWs 2 and 3 came to Verandah and they were also beaten up by the other

¶26

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

accused who came along with A1. On hearing the hue and cry of the above mentioned injured, one neighbour namely, Vadakkekara Jose came with a torch and on seeing him, the assailants ran away from the spot. It is also the case of the prosecution that PW2 Aleyamma, wife of PW-1, was wearing a gold chain and the same was lost in the incident and subsequently the same was recovered from the courtyard of the house in a broken condition. The further case of the prosecution is that subsequently, the injured were taken to the hospital where they were treated. While PW-1 was in the hospital, he gave Ext.P1 FIS before the police on the basis of which Ext.P6 F.I.R. was registered as crime No.15/94 of Ramamangalam police station. Thereafter police conducted investigation and the final report was filed on the basis of which the trial court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.74/76. During the trial, charge was read over to the accused who pleaded not guilty which necessitated further trial during which PWs-1 to PW-7 were examined as prosecution witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P8 documents

¶29

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

from the side of the prosecution. From the side of defence,

¶32

one Doctor S.Sreedevi was examined as DW-1 and marked Exts.D1 to D3 on the side of the defence as documentary evidence. M.O-1 wooden stick was marred as material object. The accused were questioned under sector 313 and they took a stand of total denial of the entire incident. Finally, the court below after appreciation of the entire evidence and materials found that A2 and A3 are not guilty and accordingly they were acquitted.

¶33

But in the case of A1, the petitioner herein, it is found that he is guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 324 of IPC. On finding that the revision petitioner/A1 found guilty, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under section 448 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 324 of IPC. Aggrieved by the above order of conviction and sentence, A1, the revision petitioner herein preferred Crl.Appeal No.382/98 which was dismissed by the lower appellate court by

¶34

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

judgment dated 29-5-2000. It is the above judgments of the courts below are challenged in this Crl.R.P.

¶37

I have heard the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

The counsel for the revision petitioner very much argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case against the revision petitioner/A1 beyond doubt and there is no independent witness to substantiate the prosecution allegation. According to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is illegal and perverse since by the very same judgment, the trial court acquitted A2 and A3 on the basis of same set of evidence. It is also submitted that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the incident and the petitioner is entitled to get acquittal for want of sufficient evidence. The counsel argued that Exts.P3 to P5 wound certificates were issued by PW-4 Doctor who is none other than a close relative of PW-2 and

¶39

the prosecution witnesses have access on PW-4 and

¶40

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶41

-:6:-

¶42

therefore the prosecution case itself creates a shadow of doubt. In support of the above contention, it is pointed out by the counsel that PWs 1 to 3 were alleged to have admitted in a Primary Health Centre which is more than 21 k.ms away from their house, whereas a Primary Health Centre is available in a walkable distance. It is also argued that the evidence tendered by DW-1 was not properly considered. Thus according to the counsel for the revision petitioner, the findings arrived at by the courts below are absolutely unsustainable, illegal and incorrect.

¶43

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution unerringly pointed out the guilt of the petitioner and the court below has rightly convicted the petitioner and the sentence imposed is not excessive or exorbitant.

¶44

I have carefully perused the materials and evidence on record and I have gone through the judgments of the courts below. No case is made out to take a different view from the concurrent finding of both the lower appellate

¶45

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶46

-:7:-

¶47

court as well as the trial court. The oral deposition of PWs 1

¶48

to 3 is completely supporting the prosecution case and nothing made out to disbelieve their version. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 are sufficient to connect the revision petitioner with the incident and the injuries sustained by them at the instance of the petitioner is further proved by Exts.P2 to P5 by PW-4 Doctor who examined the witnesses. In the light of the above materials on record, I find no reason to interfere with the finding arrived on by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court with respect to the guilt of the revision petitioner.

¶49

Sri Eldho, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submitted that the incident took place on 9-2-1994 and therefore 14 years are over and that the sentence awarded is highly excessive and exorbitant and prays for leniency in the mater of sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, in order to secure the ends of justice, the

¶50

CRL.R.P 502/00

¶51

-:8:-

¶52

petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the trial court each for the offence under section 448 and 324 of IPC but the same shall run concurrently. The revision petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation to PWs 1 to 3 under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner is granted 45 days' time to pay the compensation and to receive the sentence for which he is further directed to appear before the trial court on 3-4-2008. On such appearance, the Magistrate shall take appropriate steps in terms of this order.

¶53

The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶54

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.

kvm/-

CRL.R.P 502/00

-:9:-

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.R.P.No.502 of 2000

¶60

Order

¶61

Dated:19-2-2008

Prahladan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahladan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

BENSON,C.NO.3961,C.PRISON,VIYYUR Vs State of Kerala

Soman Vs Excise Inspector

T.K. Sukumaran Vs P.K. Kuttappan

Kochu @ Xavier Vs Excise Inspector, Wadakkancherry