Allowed

Binesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/51/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition and quashed the conviction and sentence of the first accused for non-compoundable offence under Section 452 IPC due to settlement. It also compounded the Section 323 offence and acquitted the accused under Section 352 IPC, citing judicial precedents on quashing proceedings upon settlement.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 452 IPC set aside; Section 323 IPC offence compounded and accused acquitted; conviction under Section 352 IPC quashed and accused set at liberty.

Binesh Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | 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 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/21ST PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 51 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.APPEAL 69/2013 of III ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC 506/2009 of J.M.F.C.,ADIMALI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

BINESH

¶9

S/O. SUKUMARAN, THUNDIYIL VEEDU, KRUISUPARA KARA ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO. 586/2008 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶13

ADDL.R2 JOY, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.DEVASIYA, THEKKEKARA VEEDU CAMCO JUNCTION, ADIMALY, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, ADIMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 561, IS IMPLEADED AS AS PER ORDER DT.10.3.2014 IN CRL.M.A. 1404 /14 IN CRL.R.P.51/14.

¶14

RADDL 2 BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT P MAYA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS J.,

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.51 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of March 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the first accused in C.C. No.506 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were charge sheeted under Sections 452, 506(ii), 323, 341 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

¶22

The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner/first accused along with other accused person, due to previous enmity towards the de facto complainant, in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt to the de

¶23

Crl.R.P. No.51 of 2014

¶24

:2:

¶25

facto complainant, on 14.12.2008 at 10.45 p.m. trespassed into

¶26

the rented house of the de facto complainant in Adimaly Grama Panchayat, and the accused persons pushed the de facto complainant. First accused hit on the lip of the de facto complainant with his hand and both the accused hit on the back of the de facto complainant. When Alphonsa, the wife of the de facto complainant tried to prevent the same, the accused wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant by gripping on his neck and de facto complainant sustained injury on his neck with the contact of nail of first accused. During the scuffle, the de facto complainant had lost a gold chain of 2½ soverigns worth `25,000/- and thereby the accused committed the offences as alleged.

¶27

Since the second accused was absconding, his case was

¶28

split up and re-numbered as C.C. No.215 of 2013. In C.C. No.506 of 2009, the trial court found the first accused guilty

¶29

Crl.R.P. No.51 of 2014

¶30

:3:

¶31

and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 2,000/- for offence under Section 452 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of 1,000/- for offence under Section 506(ii) of the IPC, simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of `1,000/- for offence under Section 323 of the the IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under each head. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently. Against that conviction and sentence, first accused filed Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Court - III, Thodupuzha, which was allowed in part. The conviction and sentence against the first accused under Section 506(ii) of the IPC was set aside. The conviction and sentence against first accused under Sections 452 and 323 of the IPC was confirmed. Against that judgment, the appellant/ first accused filed this Criminal Revision

¶32

Crl.R.P. No.51 of 2014

¶33

:4:

¶34

Petition.

¶35

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner and complainant filed Crl.M.

¶36

Application No.1755 of 2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the conviction and sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No.69 of 2013 stating that the matter is settled between the parties. The offence under Section 323 is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the parties have settled their disputes, permission is granted to the parties to compound the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.

¶37

In the decision reported in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19 (S.C.) it was held that:

¶38

“Criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can be quashed by accepting the terms of compromise reached between the rival parties, if the question involved in such disputes is purely of a personal nature.”

¶39

Crl.R.P. No.51 of 2014

¶40

:5:

¶41

In the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of

¶42

Punjab (2012(4) KLT 108(SC), it was held that:

¶43

“In what cases power to quash the criminal proceedings or complaint or F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc.., cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.”

¶44

Since the parties have settled their disputes amicably, I

¶45

am of the view that in order to secure the ends of justice, the conviction and sentence of the first accused in C.C. No.506 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly under Section 452 of the IPC has to be set aside.

¶46

Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.

¶47

Crl.R.P. No.51 of 2014

¶48

:6:

¶49

The offence under Section 323 of the IPC in C.C. No.506 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly is compounded and the conviction and sentence of the first accused under Section 323 of the IPC, is set aside and he is acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conviction and sentence of the first accused in

¶50

C.C. No.506 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly under Section 352 of the IPC is quashed and he is acquitted and set at liberty.

¶51

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

¶52

dl/

¶53

// TRUE COPY //

Binesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anitha Alex Vs v.G.Mathew

Mohanlal Vs Sasidharan

P. Chandran Vs Vijayan

Ajifer Vs State of Kerala

Shehla Vs State of Kerala

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala