Partly allowed

Mathai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/1973/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition challenging conviction and sentence for voluntarily causing hurt and criminal trespass. Court allowed revision in part to modify sentence, imposing fines instead of immediate imprisonment and directing portion of fines as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to impose fine of Rs.500 for Section 447 and Rs.1,000 for Section 323 with default imprisonment. Fines partly directed as compensation.

Mathai Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1973 of 2005()

¶6

-----------------------------CRA.351/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.167/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1

¶8

¶9

MATHAI, S/O.THOMAS SAMUEL, CHANJAPLACKALMANNIL HOUSE, VARIAPURAM, ELAMTHUR KIZHAKKUM MURI, ELANTHUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & INJURED PERSONS PW1 & PW2

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

K.A.ABRAHAM, S/O.UMMEN ABRAHAM, MELELMILI VILLA, VARIAPURAM ELANTHUR KIZHAKKUM MURI, ELANTHUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT.

¶15

RAJU, S/O.UMMEN ABRAHAM, KOLEDATH PARAMBU, VARIAPURAM, ELANTHUR KIZHAKKUM MURI, ELANTHUR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHIR C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R1

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶19

-------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.1973 of 2005 -------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2009.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This revision is in challenge of judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta in Crl..Appeal No.351 of 2003 confirming conviction and sentence of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner along with accused No.2 faced trial for the said offences read with Section 34 of that Code on the allegation that on 24.8.1999 at about 1.30 a.m. they trespassed into the courtyard of PWs 1 and 3 and voluntarily caused hurt to them with chopper and pelting stones. Learned magistrate acquitted accused No.2 while petitioner was found guilty as aforesaid. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for fifteen days. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed conviction and sentence. It is contended that conviction and sentence are not legal or proper.

¶22

Regarding the incident PWs 1 and 3 have given evidence. They stated that on the relevant day and time while they were asleep in their house somebody knocked at their door and they woke up. PW1 switched on the light and got out. Petitioner and accused No.2 got into the courtyard. Petitioner caused hurt to PW1 with chopper while accused No.2 pelted stone at PW3 and

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.1973/2005

¶24

¶25

injured her. PW2 is the brother of PW1 residing at 50 metres away from the place of occurrence. He claimed that he heard the alarm from the house of PWs 1 and 3, reached there and found petitioner carrying a chopper. PW4 is a neighbour residing 40 feet away from place of occurrence. He saw PW1 with bleeding injury on the head. He claimed to have seen petitioner attacking PW1. PW5 examined PWs 1 and 3 and issued Exts.P2 and P3. Courts below were impressed by the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and found petitioner guilty. It is argued by learned counsel that evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not reliable.

¶26

Apart from Exts.D1 and D2, contradictions in the previous statement which the courts below found are not material, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. That PWs and 3 suffered hurt is proved by Exts.P2 and P3 and evidence of PW5. Courts below considered the evidence and found that petitioner trespassed into the courtyard of PWs 1 and 3 and voluntarily caused hurt to them. I do not find reason to interfere with that concurrent finding.

¶27

So far as sentence is concerned, it is seen that injuries suffered by PWs 1 and 3 are minor. Petitioner is not shown to be involved in any other case. Petitioner and PWs 1 and 3 are neighbours. Considering these circumstances I am satisfied that fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable under Section 447 of the Code and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Code is sufficient in the ends of justice. Out of the fine if

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.1973/2005

¶29

¶30

realized Rs.1,000/- will be given to PW1 and Rs.500/- to PW3 as compensation.

¶31

Resultantly, this revision is allowed in part to the following extent:

¶32

i. Sentence imposed on petitioner for offence punishable

¶33

under Section 447 of the Code is modified as fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

¶34

ii. Sentence imposed on petitioner for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Code is modified as fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶35

iii. Out of the fine if realized Rs.1,000/- shall be given to PW1 and Rs.500/- to PW3 as compensation.

¶36

iv. Petitioner is granted two months’ time from today to deposit fine in the trial court. In case of failure, petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 19.9.2009 to receive the default sentence.

¶37

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶38

cks

Mathai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathai 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

Stanley Vs K.S.Roy

Kuttimoodu Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Bell Leasing and Hire Purchase Ltd. Vs Shaji.K.and Another

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