In a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under IPC 326 and sentence, the High Court of Kerala, retaining the conviction and dismissing the plea for acquittal or fine alone, reduced the sentence to six months imprisonment.
Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced from one year to six months imprisonment.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1194 of 2004 (D)
CRA.323/1997 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY CC.369/1993 of J.M.F.C.,PAYYANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED.:
MADALAN SUBAIR, S/O.KALAI ABDULLA, AGED 32M, RESIDING AT PERINGOME.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/FORMAL PARTY:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINGOME.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
kvr/
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
Crl.R.P.No. 1194 of 2004
==================
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2012 O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.369/1993 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur. He was prosecuted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Crl.R.P.1194/04 - : 2 :-
two years. The petitioner filed Crl.Appeal No.323/1997 before the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery. The Sessions Court, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment for one year. The judgments of the courts below are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition.
Crl.R.P.1194/04 - : 3 :-
there is no inviolable rule in criminal law that there cannot be any conviction on the basis of the oral evidence of the injured alone. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, if the evidence of the injured is convincing enough and the accused was not able to demolish the evidence in cross-examination, the same is more than sufficient to convict the accused. It is pointed out that in this case, PW1, who was the injured in the incident, gave categoric evidence regarding the identity of the petitioner as the person who attacked PW1 and caused injury to PW1. The injury is corroborated by medical evidence and, therefore, the evidence is more than sufficient to convict the petitioner is the contention raised.
Crl.R.P.1194/04 - : 4 :-
evidence corroborates the evidence of PW1. I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that since in the allegation there is only one injury and in the medical evidence three injuries are noted, the same will discredit the prosecution case. All the three injuries were in and around the left ear of PW1. As such, it cannot be said that presence of two more wounds will discredit the testimony of PW1. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge by the petitioner against the conviction entered by the courts below. Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed.
Crl.R.P.1194/04 - : 5 :-
with fine alone. However, taking lenient view, I reduce the punishment of imprisonment to six months instead of one year.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
sdk+
Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction based on injured PW1s testimony and corroborated medical evidence is sustainable.
Whether sentencing order for six months imprisonment is appropriate after two years imprisonment.
Whether plea for sentence of fine alone is acceptable.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MADALAN SUBAIR
STATE OF KERALA
S.SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
