High Court revised the conviction of an accused for trespass and voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Court confirmed conviction but reduced sentence to time already undergone and imposed a larger fine payable to the victim. Bail bonds cancelled.
Conviction confirmed. Sentence reduced to time undergone. Fine increased to Rs.10,000. Bail bonds cancelled.
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 P.Q.BARKATH ALI
MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1014 of 2001() -----------------------------CRA.46/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, WAYANAD. CC.62/1993 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT - ACCUSED --------------------THANDEL BABY, THANDEL HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK, VELLAMUNDA AMSOM DESOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.V.A. MATHAI SRI.JAYASANKAR. K
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------STATE, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLAMUNDA (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J.
CRL. R.P. 1014 of 2001
Dated: DECEMBER 14, 2009
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.62/1993
of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mananthavady, and the appellant in Crl.A.46/1996 of Sessions Court, Wayanad. He was convicted under secs.447 and 326 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under sec.326 of IPC. No separate sentence was awarded under sec.447 of IPC. On appeal by the accused the learned Sessions Judge reduced the substantive sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years and imposed a fine of Rs.2000/-, with a default sentence of one month. The accused has now come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P. 1014/2001 2
I. Whether the conviction of the revision petitioner under secs.447 and 326 of IPC rendered by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal can be sustained?
II. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive or unduly harsh?
Point No.I
Crl.R.P. 1014/2001 3
the F.I. Statement, Ext.P1. Pws.2 to 5 are the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident. They did not witness the incident. They turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
Crl.R.P. 1014/2001 4
which was allegedly used by the accused to beat PW.1 is not an axe handle and therefore the version of PW.1 regarding the incident cannot be believed. There is no substance in the above contention. PW.1 in cross-examination submitted that MO.1 is not the stick by which he was beaten up by the accused . Further, it is in the night the accident occurred. Therefore merely because PW.1 did not identify the stick, his entire evidence cannot be discarded. For all these reasons I am inclined to hold that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in accepting the evidence of PW.1 and holding that the accused beat PW.1 with a stick and inflicted the injuries described in Ext.P4 wound certificate.
Crl.R.P. 1014/2001 5
Point No.II
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioner under secs.447 and 326 of IPC is confirmed. The substantive sentence imposed is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him i.e. from 3.12.1992 to 5.12.1992. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. His bail bonds are cancelled. Two months time is granted for payment of fine. The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to PW.1 as compensation as provided under sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
CRL.M.P.4795 of 2001
Dismissed.
P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
mt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the appellant under sections 447 and 326 IPC, confirmed on appeal, can be sustained?
4 provisions across 2 enactments
THANDEL BABY
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
