Partly allowed

Ajifer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2014Crl.Rev.Pet/67/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a request to compound the theft offence due to the property's value exceeding threshold limits. The court affirmed the conviction but commuted the mandatory jail term, sentencing the appellant to a fine of Rs. 5,000 to meet the ends of justice.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is confirmed. The appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Ajifer 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. 67 of 2012 ( )

¶6

CRL. APPEAL NO.745/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (AD HOC -

¶7

III), NORTH PARAVUR. CC 99/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II, ALUVA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED :

¶9

AJIFER, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.KASSIM, THAYYATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶10

KOTTAMKAVU ROAD, VENNALA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.MANASH

¶12

SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.1605/09 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION), REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2014, THE COURT ON 12/03/2014 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.67 of 2012

¶19

----------------------------------------------Dated 12^th March, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the second accused in C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Aluva. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution case is briefly as follows : In furtherance of their common intention, accused Nos.1 and 2 committed theft of a motor cycle belonging to the defacto complainant worth 30,000/- . The trial court convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and the first accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of `1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. Against that conviction and sentence, the second accused filed Criminal

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.67/2012

¶24

¶25

Appeal No.745 of 2010 before the Additional District and Sessions Court (Ad hoc - III), North Paravur, which was dismissed. Against that judgment, the appellant/second accused filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

¶26

During the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the defacto complainant and the second accused filed Crl. M.A.No.1623 of 2014 under Section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C. to compound the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. stating that the matter is settled between the parties. Since the value of the stolen property exceeds `2,000/-, the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. cannot be compounded under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, Crl.M.A.No.1623 of 2014 is dismissed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same arguments advanced before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below convicted the second accused under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. on properly appreciating the evidence on record.

¶29

Crl.R.P.No.67/2012

¶30

¶31

Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the second accused under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that since the matter is settled between the parties, some leniency may be shown in imposing the sentence.

¶33

For the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C., jail sentence is not mandatory. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentencing the second accused to pay a fine of `5,000/- under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.

¶34

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the second accused in C.C.No.99 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Aluva under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is confirmed. The second accused is sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.67/2012

¶36

¶37

month. Three months time is granted to the revision petitioner

¶38

to remit the fine amount before the trial court.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.

¶41

tgs

¶42

(true copy)

Ajifer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajifer 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

Anitha Alex Vs v.G.Mathew

Mohanlal Vs Sasidharan

P. Chandran Vs Vijayan

Binesh Vs State of Kerala

Shehla Vs State of Kerala

Arun Ramachandran Nair Vs State of Kerala