Partly allowed

Abraham @ Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/255/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 427. The original sentence was modified, imposing imprisonment till the rising of the court and directing payment of fines with provisions for compensatory payment and alternative imprisonment on default.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed. Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fines. Directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to victim in default of fine.

Abraham @ Raju Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/23RD BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 255 of 2003 (B)

¶6

CRA.67/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (SPL. COURT), KOTTAYAM CC.651/1996 of J.M.F.C.-I,KANJIRAPPALLY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::

¶8

ABRAHAM @ RAJU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. ABRAHAM, KATHILANCKAL HOUSE, MANNARKYAM BHAGAM CHENAPPADY KARA, KOOVAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NOBLE MATHEW SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶10

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::

¶11

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

¶12

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

das

¶15

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.R.P. No. 255 of 2003

¶18

========================= Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This criminal revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 and 427 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo S.I for three months for the offence punishable under Sec.323, S.I for one month for the offence punishable under Sec.341 of IPC and S.I for three months for the offence punishable under Sec.427 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the entire evidence, concurred with the finding of guilt and thus the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate were confirmed.

¶21

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued questioning the correctness of the finding of

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.255/ 2003

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

guilt, I could see no reason to interfere with the verdict of conviction. Hence, conviction is to be confirmed.

¶25

Learned counsel submits that the complainant had sustained only a contusion of 2.2cm on the inner aspect of middle of right arm. The damage caused to the car, as per the allegation, is only Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). The incident took place about 16 years ago. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner had suffered much and so the substantive sentence may be avoided. Considering all the aspects, I find that the sentence is to be modified.

¶26

In the result, this criminal revision petition is disposed of as stated below:

¶27

Conviction for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 and 427 of IPC is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.255/ 2003

¶29

: 3 :

¶30

punishable under sec.341 of IPC, Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.323 and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sec.427 of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, the petitioner will undergo S.I for ten days, twenty days and two months respectively. If the fine amount is paid, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) shall be paid to PW1 as compensation. The petitioner will surrender before the learned Magistrate on 16.10.2012 to receive the sentence.

¶31

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶32

das

¶33

// True copy // PA to Judge

Abraham @ Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham @ Raju 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

Changanacherry Pazhayapalli Muslim Jamat Vs T.a.Ismail

Suresh Vs Sahadevan

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Joy S/O.Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

M.Nirmal Das Vs State of Kerala