Dismissed

Raveendran @ Orumonkuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/77/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revisions challenging conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC, the Single Judge extended provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing release on probation for one year and ordering compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on probation under Sec. 4 of Probation of Offenders Act for one year; directed to pay Rs. 2,000 compensation to PW1.

Raveendran @ Orumonkuttan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 77 of 2009()

¶6

---------------------------CRA.166/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.365/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

RAVEENDRAN @ ORUMONKUTTAN S/O.MADHAVAN, RENJITHA BHAVANAM, WARD NO 3, KARUVATTA PANCHAYATH, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI KARUVATTA VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR JAYAKRISHNAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 81 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V. RAMKUMAR, J. `````````````````

¶18

Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009 and 81 of 2009 ````````````````` Dated:18-02-2009

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

In these revisions filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No.365 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I, Haripad for an offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P. C. challenge the conviction entered and the sentence passed against them by the courts below concurrently for for the above said offence .

¶21

The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:

¶22

On 17-5-2004 at about 5.30 p.m. when P.W.1 was coming on his motor bike he saw the two accused persons at Oottuparambu railway level cross. PW1 demanded A1 to pay the money which he owed to P.W.1. Suddenly A1 picked up a granite stone from the railway track and hit on the face of P.W1. He fell down. A2 fisted on his chest. The above acts were committed by the accused in

¶23

Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009 and 81 of 2009 -:2:-

¶24

prosecution of their common intention to cause hurt to P.W.1.

¶25

On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed

¶26

against them by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined six witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6 and got marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 26^th February, 2007 found both the revision petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A sum of Rs. 500/- was directed to give P.W1 as compensation. Hence, these Revisions.

¶29

Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009 and 81 of 2009 -:3:-

¶30

Reports of the District Probation Officer, Alppuzha show that there has been no previous conviction for both the petitioners. He has also recommended the release of the petitioners on probation. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to extend the benevolent provisions of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be released on probation under Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, for a period of one year on their executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. They shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to P.W.1 under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Revision petitioners shall appear before the trial court on 16-3-2009 and execute the bond. They shall also deposit the compensation amount on that day. The compensation shall be paid to the P.W.1 on the same day.

¶31

Revision Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009.

¶33

Sd/- V.Ramkumar, Judge.

¶34

/true copy/

¶35

Crl.R.P. Nos. 77 of 2009 and 81 of 2009 -:4:-

¶36

ani.

Raveendran @ Orumonkuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran @ Orumonkuttan 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

Sudevan Vs State of Kerala

Dinesan @ Ayyappan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Rafeeque Vs State of Kerala & Another

K.M. Mohanan Vs M.V. Nalinakshan

Thomas Vs Siji and Another

K.C.Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala & Another