Partly allowed

Varghese @ Kuttappan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/721/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a criminal appeal challenging convictions and sentences for CPC offenses. The appellate court allowed a request to modify the sentence of imprisonment where the petitioners had settled with de-facto complainants, ordering only the fine to stand.

What did the court decide?

Set aside punishment of imprisonment; fine to stand. Released for PW1 as deposit was made.

Varghese @ Kuttappan Vs the State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/18TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 721 of 2004 (A) ------------------------------CRA.4/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM CC.305/2001 of C.J.M.,KOTTAYAM

¶6

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED.:

¶7

1. VARGHESE @ KUTTAPPAN, S/O.VARKEY, THEKKETHINDIYIL HOUSE, KOSAMATTAM COLONY, NATTASSERY, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

2. FRANCIS VARKEY @ BENNY,

¶9

S/O. VARKEY, THEKKETHINDIYIL HOUSE, KOSAMATTOM COLONY NATTASSERY, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

3. DEVASSIA @ PAPPACHAN,

¶11

S/O. VARKEY, THEKKETHUNDIYIL HOUSE, KOSAMATTOM VOLONY NATTASSERY, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

4. GEORGE, S/O. VARKEY, THEKKETHUNDIYIL HOUSE,

¶13

KOSAMATTOM COLONY, NATTASSERY VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI. S. RAJEEV

¶15

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE,:

¶16

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

¶17

Addl.2. SAJI @ CHACKO, S/O. P.C. JOSEPH, PUTHUVAL PUTHENPURAVEETTIL, KOSHAMATTOM COLONY, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002.

¶18

(ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.7438/2012 DATED 10.10.2012)

¶19

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

¶20

ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ARUN KUMAR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶24

--------------------------------------Crl. R.P. No.721 of 2004

¶25

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2012.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners in this Crl. R.P. are the accused in Calender Case No.305/2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. They were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were convicted under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/(Rupees Two thousand only) each with a default sentence of imprisonment for two months under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years each and to pay a fine ofRs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) each with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months

¶28

¶29

Crl. R.P. No.721 of 2004

¶30

each under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

The petitioners filed Crl. Appeal No.4/2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. The petitioners are challenging the judgments of the Courts below. They do not wish to challenge the conviction as such. They confine relief for modification of the sentence of imprisonment. It is submitted that the petitioner has settled the matter with the de-facto complainants. The de-facto complainant has also come on record, they having been impleaded in this Crl. R.P., by the petitioners by filing Crl. M.A. No.7438/2012. Along with Crl. M.A. No.7439/2012 an affidavit of the de-facto complainant is also produced to the effect that they have settled the matter between themselves. I have heard the learned public prosecutor also.

¶32

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed. I set aside the

¶33

¶34

Crl. R.P. No.721 of 2004

¶35

punishment of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners for conviction both under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal

¶36

Code. But the sentence of fine would stand. It is submitted that the entire fine amount has been deposited. The same shall be released to PW1.

¶37

The Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶38

S. SIRI JAGAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Varghese @ Kuttappan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese @ Kuttappan v. the 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

P.Suresh Vs the Si of Police, Rajapuram Police Stati

A.Mahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs the State of Kerala

E.C.Balan Vs Vineetha R.Kottai

Vivekananda Travels (P) Limited Vs Adisankara Yogakshema Kendram

Sajeendran Pillai Vs Sabu P.S.