Partly allowed

Dani.v.a. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/466/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction for assault, the high court confirmed the conviction but substituted jail sentences with fines. The court held that imprisonment was not mandatory for the offences spotted.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was confirmed; the accused were sentenced to pay a fine of 500/- and 1000/- respectively in default of which they would undergo simple imprisonment; three months were granted to remit t

Dani.v.a. 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/14TH PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 466 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.A 834/2010 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1843/2006 of J.M.F.C.,KUNNAMKULAM CRIME NO. 924/2006 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶9

DANI.V.A., S/O.ABRAHAM, VAZHAPILLY HOUSE PUTHOOR, KAIPARAMBU

¶10

BENNY V.A. S/O.ABRAHAM VAZHAPILLY HOUSE PUTHOOR, KAIPARAMBU

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2014, THE COURT 5-3-2014 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.466 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of March 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1843 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam.

¶22

The prosecution case is briefly as follows. Accused

¶23

Nos.1 and 2 are brothers. On 5.11.2006 at about 6.15 p.m.,

¶24

PW2 hired an autorikshaw driven by the second accused from Puthur to Parappukkavu. First accused was also travelling in that autorikshaw along with second accused. When they reached at Mazhuvanchery, the accused attacked PW2 and he sustained serious injuries. The trial court convicted both the

¶25

Crl.R.P. No.466 of 2014

¶26

:2:

¶27

accused under sections 341, 324 and 326 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of `5,000/- each for offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Against that conviction and sentence, both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2010 before the Sessions Court , Thrissur which was allowed in part. The conviction and sentence under Sections 324 and 326

¶28

read with 34 of the IPC was set aside. Both the accused are convicted under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 323 of the IPC and they were sentenced

¶29

to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶30

Crl.R.P. No.466 of 2014

¶31

:3:

¶32

They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of `1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each. Against that judgment, the appellants/accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners raised the same arguments raised before the trial court and the appellate court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that if for any reason the conviction is not set aside, some leniency may be shown in imposing the sentence.

¶34

Both the courts below convicted both the accused

¶35

under Section 341 of the IPC and the appellate court convicted both the accused under Section 323 of the IPC on properly

¶36

Crl.R.P. No.466 of 2014

¶37

:4:

¶38

appreciating the evidence on record. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of both the accused under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC.

¶39

For the offences under sections 341 and 323 of the IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing both the accused to pay a fine of 500/- each under Section 341 of the IPC and to pay a fine of 1,000/- each under section 323 of the IPC would meet the ends of justice.

¶40

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1843 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam under Sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 of the IPC is confirmed. The accused are sentenced to pay a fine of `500/- each under Section 341 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week each. They are

¶41

Crl.R.P. No.466 of 2014

¶42

:5:

¶43

also sentenced to pay a fine of `1,000/- each under Section 323 of the IPC in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks each. Three months time is granted to revision

¶44

petitioners to remit the fine amount before the trial court.

¶45

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

¶46

dl/

¶47

// TRUE COPY //

Dani.v.a. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dani.v.a. 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

Anilkumar @ Chanthu Vs State of Kerala

K.I.Unnikrishnan Namboothiri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigatio

Mohanan K.N. @ Sathyan Vs Prabil Kumar T.N.

Ramachandran and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Dennis Vs Sub Inspector of Police