Partly allowed

Dinesan @ Ayyappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/281/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision, confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 451 and 324 IPC but modified the sentence to include short-term imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court for Sections 451 and 324 IPC with fines and compensation.

Dinesan @ Ayyappan 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. 281 of 2009()

¶6

-------------------------------CRA. NO. 2/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM. C.C. NO. 2560/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE – I, KOCHI -5.

¶7

PETITIONER- APPELLANT-ACCUSED:-

¶8

¶9

DINESAN @ AYYAPPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ANANDAN, RESIDING AT PALAMARAPPARAMBIL, CC X/814 F, AMARAVATHY DESOM, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. MR. C.AJITH KUMAR

¶11

MR. C. ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)

¶12

RESPONDENTS- COMPLAINAT & STATE:-

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA (REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATIONCR.NO.100/2003 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION (REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

ADV. MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, 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. 281 of 2009

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.2560 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi for offences punishable under Sections 451 and 324 IPC challenges

¶23

the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the courts below for the said offences.

¶24

The case of the prosecution can be summarised as

¶25

follows:

¶26

On 08.07.2003, at about 11 p.m., the accused criminally trespassed into the bedroom of PW1's house in Fort Kochi with the intention of causing hurt to PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by biting his nose and inflicting a bleeding injury.

¶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 support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 7

¶28

Crl.R.P. No. 281/2009 -:2:-

¶29

witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and got marked 6 documents as Exts. P1 to P6.

¶30

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.

¶31

The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 03.12.2005 found the revision petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 451 IPC and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and six months respectively. From out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2000/- was directed to be paid to PW1, the injured. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam l as per judgment dated 19.12.2007 confirmed the conviction

¶32

Crl.R.P. No. 281/2009 -:3:-

¶33

entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, this Revision.

¶34

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 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.

¶35

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, for his conviction under Section 451 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three

¶36

Crl.R.P. No. 281/2009 -:4:-

¶37

thousand only) and on default to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. For his conviction under Section 324 IPC, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to PW1, the injured. On default to pay the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The petitioner is given 45 days from today to deposit the fine amount as well as compensation before the trial court.

¶38

In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2009.

¶39

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶40

Dinesan @ Ayyappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesan @ Ayyappan 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.

Sudevan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Rafeeque Vs State of Kerala & Another

Dr.a.Asokan Vs R.Gopinathan