High Court in revision rejected challenge to conviction and sentence of petitioner for acid attack causing grievous hurt under IPC Sections 326 and 308, holding sentence not excessive given injuries.
Conviction and sentence confirmed; revision petition dismissed.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2151 of 2009()
-----------------------------CRA.737/2007 of SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM SC.137/2007 of II ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED
ANIL, AGED 32 YEARS, (NOW IN CUSTODY C.NO. 2247, CP, TVM) S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PEPPATHI MALAYIL VEEDU, THEKKUMALA KARA. MANJALOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P.
RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT/C OMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.2151 of 2009 -------------------------------------Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009.
ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor.
Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009
2
a.m. when PW1 was asleep in his room petitioner is said to have entered that room and poured acid on PW1. PW1 has given evidence in that line. He claimed to have identified the petitioner at the time of incident itself. PW2 stated that himself and petitioner were sleeping in the room adjacent to the room in which PW1 was sleeping. At about 1 a.m. on the day of incident he saw petitioner going out of the room with the plastic can. After about half an hour he heard the alarm of PW1 from the adjacent room, went there and found petitioner going out of the room with a plastic can. There was smell of acid in the room where PW1 was sleeping. PW1 had suffered burns. PW4 also heard cry of PW1 from the place of occurrence, reached there and found PW1 with burn injuries. He found the plastic can there. Himself and PW2 took PW1 to the bathroom and they poured water on him. Then they informed PW3, the owner of hotel. PW3 came there. PW1 was taken to the hospital. PW7 examined PW1 in the hospital and issued Ext.P5, wound certificate. Ext.P6 is the discharge certificate. Exts.P5 and P6 referred to the burn injuries suffered by PW1. In Ext.P5 it is stated that PW1 had suffered corrosive burns including on the face. The degree of burns is stated to be 60%. The history and cause of injury stated in Ext.P5 is that co-worker poured acid on the body while patient was asleep. PW7 has opined that complications arising out of the injuries could cause death.
Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009
3
Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009
4
corroborated that evidence. A further fact which corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is the evidence of PW6 supported by Ext.P3 and seizure of MO1 from the place of occurrence and the room occupied by the petitioner. It is proved that petitioner purchased formic acid from PW6 on the previous day of incident in MO1 and poured it on PW1 on the relevant day, time and place.
Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009
5
sentence will run concurrently and that petitioner will get the benefit of set off. Though learned counsel made a fervent plea for leniency on sentence, considering the circumstances including the injuries suffered by PW1 and the calculated moves made by the petitioner with corrosive substance I am not inclined to think that any interference is called for. Leniency in such circumstances would amount to misplaced sympathy. Therefore that request of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence awarded to the petitioner.
This revision petition therefore is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction for offences under Sections 326 and 308 IPC should be interfered with.
Whether the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed should be deemed excessive.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ANIL
STATE OF KERALA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
