Partly allowed

Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/2103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the Kerala High Court modified the substantive sentence of the petitioner from simple imprisonment of two months to imprisonment till the rising of the court, set aside the fine, and directed payment of compensation to the victim witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Simple imprisonment modified to till rising of the court; fine set aside; petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 8,000 as compensation to victims.

Babu Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2103 of 2009 -----------------------------CRA.835/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.772/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA ....................

¶3

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶4

------------------------------------------------BABU, S/O. LEKSHMANAN NADAR, P.P.VII NO.23, VETTUVILA VEEDU, NEAR ELANKAM TEMPLE, MALANKARA DESOM, PARASSALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶5

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶6

¶7

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

¶8

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI C S HRITHWIK

¶9

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J

¶11

Crl.R.P.No. 2103 of 2009

¶12

--------------------------------------Dated this 13^th day of July 2009

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This revision arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in criminal appeal No.835 of 2006 confirming conviction of petitioner but modifying the sentence. Case is that on 30-09-2000 at about 9.15 p.m petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PWs.1 and 2 with a knife and used obscene words against PW.3. He faced trial for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324and 294(b) of the Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Learned magistrate found petitioner guilty under Sec.324 of the Code, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs.3000/- with direction that out of the fine if realised, Rs.2,000/- will be given to PW.1 as compensation. Petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Secs. 323 and 294(b) of the Code. In appeal, conviction under Sec.324 of the Code was confirmed but the sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for two months and fine of

¶15

Crl.R.P.No.2103 of 2009

¶16

¶17

Rs.5000/- with direction that out of the fine if realised Rs.2000/-

¶18

will be given to PW.1 and Rs.1000/- to PW.2 as compensation. It is contended by learned counsel that conviction and sentence are not sustainable since PWs.1 to 3 have given evidence contrary to what they had told the investigating officer. Learned counsel referred to me evidence let in by the prosecution.

¶19

According to the prosecution, on account of political

¶20

enmity due to a close relative of petitioner contesting election to the local authority, petitioner who belonged to one political group, caused hurt to PWs.1 and 2 who belonged to the opposite political group. As per the prosecution case there was enmity between petitioner and PW.3 , petitioner tried to attack PW.3 and the latter took to his heels. At that time PW.1, brother of PW.3 was returning home from the nearby shop. Petitioner turned against PW.1 and stabbed him with a knife. Hearing the hue and cry, PW.2 who is another brother of PW.1 came from his house and petitioner assaulted him also with the knife. Thereafter petitioner

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.2103 of 2009

¶22

¶23

is said to have run away from the scene. PWs.1 to 3 gave evidence in that line. Contradiction proved in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are Exts.D1 to D5. As per Ext.D1, PW.1 is seen to have told the police that in the course of the incident his watch fell down, the local people who gathered there collected and returned the watch to him. PW.1 stated in the evidence that when the watch fell down, he collected it. The discrepancy pointed out in the evidence of PW.3 (Exts. D4 and D5 ) is as to how he had talked to the petitioner before the incident. So far as PW.2 is concerned, the contradiction is Ext.D2 and D3 and that related to him PW2 came to the scene of occurrence. Courts below found that evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is acceptable and that Ext.D1 to D5 will not affected their evidence. It is seen from Exts.P2 and P3 and evidence of PW.5 that about fifteen minutes after the incident PWs.1 and 2 were examined by PW.5 and there were found to have incised wounds. They came with the history that they were assaulted with knife that day at about 9.15p.m. PW.5 opined that the injuries

¶24

Crl.R.P.No.2103 of 2009

¶25

¶26

could be as alleged.

¶27

According to the petitioner he was assaulted with knife by PWs.1 to 3 in front of house of PW.2 and in the course of that, Pws.1 and 2 suffered injuries. Apart from the mere suggestion there is no acceptable evidence in that line. There are also no circumstances to hold that incident occurred in the way suggested by petitioner.

¶28

Yet another argument is that no independent witness has given evidence regarding the incident. Prosecution had examined PW.4, but he refused to support. Courts below considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and found that there is no reason to disbelieve them. On hearing learned counsel and going through the judgments under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with conviction of the petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel contended that petitioner is not involved in any other case and that being a young man leniency may be shown to him. I have gone through the copy of the wound

¶30

Crl.R.P.No.2103 of 2009

¶31

¶32

certificates of PWs.1 and 2 produced by the public prosecutor for my perusal and find that the wound injuries are not at all serious. It is not shown that petitioner is involved in any other case. Even as per the prosecution case, there was some enmity between the two sides due to political reasons. Though, that is no justification for causing hurt to the opponent I find that learned Sessions Judge was also inclined to show leniency and reduced imprisonment from one year to two months. In the facts and circumstances I am of the view that simple imprisonment till rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. At the same time PWs.1 and 2 who suffered injury have to be compensated. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by PWs.1 and 2, I direct the petitioner to pay compensation to them at the rate of Rs.5000/- to PW.1 and Rs. 3000/- to PW.2.

¶33

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

¶34

1.Substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified as

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.2103 of 2009

¶36

¶37

simple imprisonment till rising of the court.

¶38

2.Sentence of fine is set aside. Petitioner is directed to deposit

¶39

Rs.8000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) in the trial court for payment as compensation to PWs.1 and 2 in the manner stated above, within two months from this day failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. .

¶40

Petitioner shall appear in the trial court on 16-09-09 to receive the sentence.

¶41

THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶42

Sbna/

Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

K.C.Shaji Vs State

Nirmalan Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Sreenivasan Vs Vasudevan K.Panthalam

T.Abdu @ Abdutty Vs C.Vijayarajan

E.v.Paulose Vs National Small Industries Orporation

D.K.Rajendran Vs P.K.Sajeendran