Partly allowed

Jesty Abraham Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Feb 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/993/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition regarding Section 498A IPC, the High Court could not permit compounding as the offence is non-compoundable. However, subjecting the settled dispute between parties, the Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a reduced fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence set aside; directed to suffer imprisonment till rising of court and pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months.

Jesty Abraham Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/21ST MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 993 of 2007 ( )

¶6

(CRA.10/2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.148/2001 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA)

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST ACCUSED:

¶8

JESTY ABRAHAM JACOB AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.CHACKO, THEKKEDATHU VEEDU KANDIYOOR MURI, MAVELIKARA VILLAGE

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT-STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. LIZYAMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT

¶14

KRIPA COTTAGE, KATTANAM, PALLICKAL P.O, KATTANAM, MAVELIKKARA, (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT)

¶15

*** ADDL. RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/1/2012 IN CRL.M.A. 535/2010.**

¶16

R1 - BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RAJESH. R2 - BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶19

Crl. R.P. No.993 of 2007

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.148/2001 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mavelikara criminal revision petition for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the IPC. He was found guilty. Trial Court therefore convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. In appeal, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence as one of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5000 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was also directed that if the amount is realized, a sum of Rs.3,000/- will be given to PW1.

¶23

Before this Court, the defacto complainant and the accused have filed Crl.M.A No.536/2012 wherein it is pointed out that they have amicably settled the difference between them and the complainant has no further grievance in the matter. They seek permission to compound the offence. They entered into an agreement, copy of which is produced.

¶24

¶25

Crl. R.P. No.993 of 2007

¶26

On going through the petition, it seen that the defacto complainant and accused have amicably settled the dispute between them and the complainant has no no further grievances in the matter. But Section 498 A is not a compoundable offence.

¶27

Therefore this Court unable to grant permission to compound the offence. But considering the fact that the parties have settled their differences, it is felt that some leniency can be shown with regard to the sentence.

¶28

In the result, while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence. under Section 498 A, sentence awarded is set aside and the petitioner is directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Petitioner shall appear before the court below on 7/3/2012 to receive the sentence.

¶29

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶30

Scl.

Jesty Abraham Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jesty Abraham Jacob 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

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Sreeletha & Another

Radhakrishnan Master Vs v.M.Muhammed and Another

K.K.Sabareesan Vs P.T.Sajna

V.R.Ajith Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Muhammed Iqbal Vs P.Devadasan

Wilson Vs State of Kerala