Partly allowed

Sudevan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/227/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in criminal revision challenged conviction for voluntary hurt under IPC 324. Court affirmed conviction but reduced sentence from one month imprisonment, ordering incarceration till the rising of the Court plus fine as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; original sentence set aside; new sentence imposed: imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 15,000 payable to victim.

Sudevan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 227 of 2009()

¶6

¶7

C.C.NO.759 OF 1997 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM-I, ATTINGAL CRA NO.385/20000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)NO.II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶9

¶10

SUDEVAN, 72 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, LEKSHMI SADANAM, PUTHUKURICHY, CHIRAYINKIL DESOM, SARKARA VILLAGE

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶18

==========================

¶19

Crl. R.P. No.227 of 2009

¶20

===========================

¶21

Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.759 of 1997 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Attingal for offences punishable under Section 324 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the aforesaid offence.

¶24

The case of the prosecution can be summarised as

¶25

follows:

¶26

On 7.11.96 at about 3.30 p.m seeing PW1 Syamala defecating on the property of the accused, he rushed towards her and voluntarily assaulted her with an areacanut splint at Kadakam in Chirayinkeezh village. The accused has thus committed the aforementioned offence.

¶27

On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in

¶28

Crl. R.P. No. 227/09

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 6 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to 5.

¶31

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.

¶32

The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 7.09.2000 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional Sessions Court(Ad hoc No.II), Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 31.03.2008 confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision.

¶33

Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the

¶34

Crl. R.P. No. 227/09

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed.

¶37

What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. I am of the view that interest justice will be adequately met by imposing a sentence to be passed hereinafter. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) to PW1, Syamala/ the

¶38

injured. The said fine shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 (1) Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation before the trial court within one month from today. On default to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall suffer

¶39

Crl. R.P. No. 227/09

¶40

-:4:-

¶41

simple imprisonment for three months.

¶42

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above.

¶43

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2009.

¶44

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶45

Sudevan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudevan 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

Mani T. Mundat Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Sub Inspector

Hiranmayee Devi Vs T.S.Sreekumaran Nair and Another

V.R.Renjith Vs the Kottyam Dist.Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Dinesan @ Ayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Rafeeque Vs State of Kerala & Another

Dr.a.Asokan Vs R.Gopinathan