Partly allowed

P.a.Mukthar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/1533/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under IPC Sections 406 and 498A, the High Court accepted the parties' compromise regarding Section 406, leading to acquittal on that charge. Conviction under Section 498A was confirmed but sentence reduced to simple imprisonment till rising of the court considering the settlement and the petitioner's employment abroad.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner acquitted of Section 406 IPC; conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed; sentence modified to simple imprisonment till rising of the court.

P.a.Mukthar Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1533 OF 2009()

¶6

------------------------------------------CRA.637/2002 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-II) THALASSERY CC.277/2002 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

P.A.MUKTHAR, S/O.ABOOBACKER, GULSHER, DHARMADAM AMSOM, PALAYAD DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶17

CRL. R.P. NO.1533 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2009

¶18

Heard counsel for petitioner, P.W.1 and Public prosecutor.

¶19

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Thalassery in Crl. Appeal No.637 of 2002 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner married P.W.1, the de facto complainant on 16.5.1999. She alleged that petitioner subjected her to cruelty demanding more ornaments and money and that ornaments and money given to her and entrusted with the petitioner were misappropriated by him. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 to prove the alleged cruelty and misappropriation. They have given evidence in support of prosecution. Exhibit P2 also was produced in support of the case of P.W.1. Courts below found that petitioner committed the offences under Secs.498A and 406 of the Code.

¶20

So far as the offence punishable under Sec.406 of the Code is concerned it is compoundable at the instance of the person whose property was misused. Petitioner and P.W.1 filed a compromise petition, Crl.M.A. No.6615 of 2009 reporting that dispute between

¶21

CRL. R.P. No.1533 of 2009

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

them is settled out of court amicably and seeking permission to compound the offence. It is requested in that application that petitioner may be acquitted of the charge against him. Offence under Sec.406 of the Code as aforesaid is compoundable. It is seen from the application that the composition is voluntary. I do not find reason to disallow the permission sought for.

¶24

So far as offence under Sec.498A of the Code is concerned that offence is not compoundable with or without permission of court. Petitioner is not seriously challenging his conviction for that offence concurrently entered by the courts below. It is seen from the judgments of courts below that evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 was considered to hold that petitioner has committed offence under Sec.498A of the Code. As that finding rested on a proper appreciation of evidence and no illegality, irregularity or impropriety is shown to have vitiated with that finding, interference in revision is not called for. Hence conviction of petitioner for the offence under Sec.498A of the Code is confirmed.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is employed abroad and considering the settlement reached between the parties leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence.

¶26

CRL. R.P. No.1533 of 2009

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

Having considered the matter in the light of the composition entered between the parties I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice so far as the offence punishable under Sec.498A of the Code is concerned.

¶29

Resultantly, composition entered between the parties for the offence punishable under Sec.406 of the Code as per Crl. M.A. No.6615 of 2009 is accepted and that shall have the effect of acquittal of petitioner of that offence under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sentence imposed on petitioner for the offence under Sec.498A of the Code is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court.

¶30

Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 24.7.2009 to receive the sentence.

¶31

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶33

vsv

¶34

CRL. R.P. No.1533 of 2009

¶35

-: 4 :-

P.a.Mukthar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Mukthar 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

M.D.Thomas Vs Omana

Dr.Bhargavi Bhargavan Unni Vs Varghese Mathew,Rep.by C M Mathai & Anor

P.C.Thomas Vs M.T.Parameswaran Pillai

Vs

Vattaparambil Hameed Vs State of Kerala and Another

Siju Vs the State of Kerala, Rep. by the Sub