Partly allowed

Sunil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/1053/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners appealed against conviction under IPC sections 332, 324 and 506(ii). High Court confirmed conviction but substituted rigorous imprisonment with a fine to mitigate harshness due to the delay of 18 years.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; rigorous imprisonment replaced by a fine of Rs. 5,000 each liable for simple imprisonment in default, payable within three months.

Sunil Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1053 of 2003 ( )

¶6

CRL.APPEAL 550/2000 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC 25/1996 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

¶8

SUNIL S/O.SUBRAMANIAN MADAKKATHARA, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

PRATHAPAN S/O.SUBRAMANIAN MADAKKATHARA, THRISSUR TALUK

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI THOMAS J AMBOOKEN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.1053 of 2003

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶18

Dated this the 20^th day of March 2014

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.25 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - 1, Thrissur. The accused are charge sheeted under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

¶21

The prosecution case is briefly as follows. On 24.8.1995 at about 11.30 p.m., the second accused attacked the Excise officials, who arrested the first accused in connection with an Abkari offence and both the accused intimidated the

¶22

Excise officials. The trial court convicted both the accused

¶23

Crl.R.P. No.1053 of 2003

¶24

:2:

¶25

under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced

¶26

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Sections 332 and 324 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 506(ii) of the IPC and they were jointly ordered to pay 12,000/- as compensation under Section 357(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. If the compensation is paid, an amount of 10,000/- will be given to PW9 and `1,000/- each was ordered to be paid to PWs 1 and 2, Excise officials. Criminal Appeal No.550 of 2000 filed before the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners

¶28

and learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.1053 of 2003

¶30

:3:

¶31

revision petitioners raised the same arguments advanced before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below convicted the accused under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) of the the IPC, on properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused for the above said offences. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that since the occurrence took place 18 years ago, some leniency may be shown in awarding the sentence.

¶32

For offences under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of `5,000/- each under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC for each offence, would meet the ends of justice.

¶33

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.1053 of 2003

¶35

:4:

¶36

part. The conviction of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.25 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - 1, Thrissur under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC, is confirmed. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000/- each for the each offence, under Sections 332, 324 and 506(ii) of the IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each, for each offence. The revision petitioners are directed to remit the fine amount before the court below within three months from today. If the fine amount is realised, 20,000/- shall be paid to PW9 and `5,000/- each shall be paid to PWs1 and 2 as compensation.

¶37

Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶38

dl/

¶39

// TRUE COPY //

Sunil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Sreedharan Vs Kunhirman Nair (Died),, Padmavathy and Others

Sam @ Samkutty Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sivasankaran Nair Vs K.S.Harikumar

Sivasankaran Nair Vs M.R.Mohankumar