Partly allowed

James v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/306/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala allowed Criminal Revision Petition in part, confirming conviction for criminal trespass and causing hurt. Court enhanced fine to Rs. 1,000 per offence with option to remit in lieu of one month simple imprisonment for each charge.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; fine enhanced to Rs. 1,000 each for Sections 323 and 448 IPC; 3 months to remit fine, otherwise 1 month simple imprisonment per charge.

James Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/19TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 306 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl.A 153/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, OTTAPALAM CC 210/2007 of J.M.F.C., MANNARKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

JAMES, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.CHERIYAN, MARUTHOTTIL HOUSE, VADAKURUSSI P.O.VIYYAKURUSSI, POTTASSERY, MANNARKKAD TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶15

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.306 of 2014

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of March 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.210 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. On 16.4.2007 in the night, the accused trespassed

¶20

into the house of PW1 and attempted to outrage her modesty and assaulted her and her husband. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of `500/each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Fine amount if realised was ordered to pay to PW1 as compensation. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.306 of 2014 :2:

¶22

Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2012 filed before the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad at Ottapalam was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same arguments raised before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below found the accused guilty under Sections 323 and 448 of the IPC on properly appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused under Sections 323 and 448 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is a handicapped person, who is not involved in any other occurrence. For offence under Sections 323 and 448 of the IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory.

¶24

Crl.R.P. No.306 of 2014 :3:

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the accused to pay a fine of `1,000/- each under Sections 323 and 448 of the the IPC, would meet the ends of justice.

¶26

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in C.C. No.210 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad under Sections 323 and 448 of the the IPC, is confirmed. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of 1,000/- each under Sections 323 and 448 of the the IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner to remit the fine amount before the trial court. The fine amount remitted by the accused before the trial court will be given credit to. Out of the fine amount, 1,000/- will be given to PW1 as compensation.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶29

¶30

// TRUE COPY //

James v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James 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

Ganeshan K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Shivakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shivakumar Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Riyas Vs Abdul Rahiman

Jaimon K.A. Vs State of Kerala