Partly allowed

Gopi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/3205/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed criminal revision petition in part. Conviction confirmed for accused in assault and mischief case. Jail terms substituted with fines, with default imprisonment and time granted to remit fines.

What did the court decide?

Convictions maintained. Imprisonment replaced by fines of ₹1,000 (S.323), ₹2,000 (S.324), and ₹1,000 (S.427). Default: simple imprisonment in place of each fine if not paid within 3 months.

Gopi Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/26TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3205 of 2007 ( )

¶6

Crl.Appeal 120/2006 of III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC 447/2001 of J.M.F.C.,CHAVAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

GOPI.S/O. SANKARAN, PULINCHERY HOUSE, NAMBAZHIKKAD DESOM, KANDANASSERY VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD TALUK.

¶9

VELAYUDHAN, S/O. SANKARAN, PULINCHERY HOUSE, DO..DO....

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIT

¶11

SRI.RANJIT BABU

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI THOMAS J AMBOOKEN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.3205 of 2007

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of March 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.447 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad. The prosecution case is that on 30.4.2001 at about 9 p.m., the accused in furtherance of the common intention

¶22

trespassed into the house of PW1 and beat him with a torch and hit him with a stone thereby causing injuries to him. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused caught hold of

¶23

the hand of PW2 and pulled it thereby outraging her modesty

¶24

and also cause damage to the house by pelting stones and thereby causing a loss to the tune of `400/-. The trial court

¶25

found both the accused guilty for the offence under Sections

¶26

Crl.R.P. No.3205 of 2007

¶27

:2:

¶28

323, 324 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). Both the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under section 323 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months each for offence under Section 427 of the IPC. Against that conviction and sentence both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.120 of 2006 before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track) No.1, Thrissur which was allowed in part and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 323 and 324 of the IPC and also under Section 427 as against the 2^nd petitioner. The appellate court however set aside the conviction of the 1^st petitioner under Section 427 of the IPC. Against that judgment, the appellants/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.3205 of 2007

¶30

:3:

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the

¶32

revision petitioners raised the same arguments advanced before the trial court and the appellate court. Since both the courts below convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC on properly appreciating the evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC. Since both the courts below convicted the second accused under Section 427 of the IPC on properly appreciating the evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the 2^nd accused under Sections 427 of the IPC. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners are first offenders and that they are not involved in

¶33

any other offence and that since the occurrence took place 12 years ago, some leniency may be shown in awarding the

¶34

Crl.R.P. No.3205 of 2007

¶35

:4:

¶36

sentence.

¶37

For offence under Sections 323, 324 and 427 of the IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing accused Nos.1 and 2 to pay a fine of 1,000/- each under Section 323 of the IPC and sentencing them to pay a fine of 2,000/- each under Section 324 of the IPC and sentencing the second accused to pay a fine of `1,000/- under section 427 of the IPC, would meet the ends of justice.

¶38

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.447 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC is confirmed. The conviction of the second accused under Section 427 of the IPC is also confirmed. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of `1,000/- each under Section 323 of

¶39

Crl.R.P. No.3205 of 2007

¶40

:5:

¶41

the IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two

¶42

weeks. Both the accused are sentenced to pay a fine of

¶43

`2,000/- each under Section 324 of the IPC in default to

¶44

undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Second accused is also sentenced to pay a fine of `1,000/- under section 427 of the IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioners to remit the fine amount before the trial court.

¶45

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

¶46

dl/

¶47

// TRUE COPY //

¶48

PA TO JUDGE

Gopi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi 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

Lalu Vs Si of Pollice, Valappadu Police Station

K.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Susan George Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Raghunathan Vs K.Pratheesh

P.N. Prakash Vs K.M. Rajendra & Another

S.Gopakumar Vs Ashok Kumar.v.