Partly allowed

Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2012CRL.A/1260/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam heard a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for arson under Sec.436 IPC. The court confirmed the conviction but reduced the rigorous imprisonment term from three years to eighteen months and increased the fine to Rs.30,000/- as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence modified to 18 months R.I. and Rs.30,000/- compensation; alternative sentence of 6 months S.I. in default.

Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/13TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1260 of 2003 ( )

¶6

-------------------------SC.218/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC), KALPETTA

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED :-

¶8

KRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.SARATH CHANDRAN. K

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :-

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE V.H.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

jvt

¶16

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of September 2012

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by Addl.Sessions Judge

¶21

(Adhoc), Kalpetta for offence punishable under Sec.436 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay Rs.25,000/- as fine and in default he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year.

¶22

The F.I.Statement was lodged by PW1 at about 9 PM on 16.3.1999, the day of the incident. It is alleged that the accused set fire to the thatched house belonging to PW1. PW2 is his mother. PW6 is his wife. PW3 is a neighbour.

¶23

According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 5 PM on 16.3.1999. It is contended that the accused went to the house of PW2. PW2 alone was there. The baby (the child of PW1) was also there. The accused asked for a match box to light the beedi. After obtaining the

¶24

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

match box he lit the beedi and thereafter the accused set fire to the thatched house of PW1. PW2 attempted to pull away the burning thatching grass to avoid spreading of fire. But the accused pushed her down. The entire house/shed was destroyed in fire causing a loss of Rs.60,000/- to PW1. PW1, who was a little away engaged in work relating to digging of well on hearing the hue and cry, reached the place of incident. He was told by PW2 that the house was set fire to by the accused. Thereafter he went to the police station to lodge the F.I. Statement, Ext.P1 based on which F.I.R., Ext.P7 was registered. The police officer went to the scene of occurrence, prepared Ext.P2 scene mahazar and also took photos (Ext.P3 series) of which Ext.P4 series are the negatives. The remnants of the burnt articles were seized by the investigating officer as per Ext.P2 mahazar.

¶27

The learned Sessions Judge after analysing the entire evidence placed reliance on the sworn testimony given by PW2, who is the mother of PW1 which was to some extent corroborated by the evidence given by PW3, the neighbour.

¶28

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

The attending circumstances were also relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to find that the prosecution case is true. Hence the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued at length stating that the court below was not justified in placing implicit reliance on the evidence given by PW2. The learned counsel submits that though in the chief examination it was stated by PW2 that she saw the accused setting fire to the thatched house, during cross examination it was stated that the accused set fire to the house from outside whereas PW2 was inside the house only.

¶32

But this submission has been strongly resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is stated that PW2, who is a rustic woman, not much literate and belonging to Scheduled Tribe has given evidence after about 4 years of the incident. The evidence would show that she and the baby (the son of PW1) alone were at the house at the relevant time. There is also evidence to show that PW6, the wife of PW1 was on her

¶33

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

way a little away from the scene house. She had seen the accused proceeding to the scene house and he had in fact posed a threat indicating that he will do harm to her. The evidence given by PW1 that the accused set fire to the house is to some extent, according to the prosecution, corroborated by PW3. As PW3 did not support the prosecution, she was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after seeking permission of the court. Her evidence would show that when she reached the scene house the accused was seen in the house. It was stated by her that she saw the accused pushing down PW2. Her evidence would further show that she had an apprehension that the accused would attack her child and so, taking the child she went away from the scene house. There is also the statement given by PW3 that PW2 was seen pulling down the burning grass, to avoid spreading of fire. Therefore, though PW3 was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, her evidence which corroborates the material aspects regarding the immediate presence of the accused in the scene house can certainly be relied upon by the

¶36

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶37

-: 5 :-

¶38

prosecution. The contention that there is inconsistency in the evidence given by PW2 as to how the said house was set fire did not persuade the learned trial judge to disbelieve PW2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even according to the prosecution a few days earlier there was an incident in which it was alleged that the accused had plucked and removed the tender coconuts from the coconut trees belonging to PW1. The said act of the accused was questioned by PW1 and there was altercation between them. It is also in evidence that on the previous day also there was an incident in which the accused was stated to have attacked PW6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accused was falsely implicated in this case and that the house might have got fire accidentally from the oven and only because of the animosity he was implicated as an accused. But that plea cannot be countenanced in view of the acceptable and credible version given by PW2 regarding actual act of setting fire by the accused. The fact that when she attempted to pull down the burning grass to avoid

¶39

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶40

-: 6 :-

¶41

spreading fire she was pushed down by the accused would further fortify the case of the prosecution that the house was set fire to by the appellant. It was admitted that the house was a thatched house and because of the destruction caused by fire, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.60,000/-. Since it was a dwelling house that was destroyed in fire, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sec.436 IPC is well merited. That finding is confirmed.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is also a member of the Scheduled Tribe and that he was having some ailments and so, considering all the aspects, maximum leniency may be shown.

¶43

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that considering the gravity of the offence, the appellant is not entitled to get any leniency. Considering all the aspects, the sentence can be modified to a certain extent.

¶44

In the result, this appeal is disposed of as stated below :-

¶45

The conviction of the appellant for the offence

¶46

Crl.A. No.1260 of 2003

¶47

under Sec.436 IPC is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the court below, the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to PW1 and in default of payment of the same, the appellant will undergo S.I. for 6 months. The court below will execute the same without delay.

¶48

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶49

Jvt

Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan 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

Padmini Vs Sivasudhan

Ravikumar Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Raphel Vs State of Kerala

Madhu Vs State of Kerala

M.T.Varki Vs Alice