Allowed

Kuttappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016CRL.A/1640/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. Appeal against conviction for assault. The 1st appellant died, causing abatement of his charge. The Court found that the parties had settled the matter out of court via a compromise under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the Court invoked its inherent powers under S.482 Cr.P.C., allowed the compromise petition, quashed the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the 2nd appellant.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Sections 341, 324 r/w.34 IPC were quashed. The second appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. Crl.M.A. No.986/2016 was allowed.

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1640 of 2004 ( ) --------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 23/2004 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-1), ERNAKULAM DATED 13-09-2004

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶7

1. KUTTAPPAN, S/O. KANDA, KARIKKATTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAMKARA, KANJOOR, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE.

¶8

2. SABU S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KARIKKATTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAMKARA, KANJOOR, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R2:` PRABHAKARAN, THOOMBAYIL, PARAPPURAMKARA, KANJOOR, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE - 683 562.

¶12

(ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.984/2016 DATED 18.2.2016)

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SURESH ADDL.2 BY ADV. SMT.K.A.SANITHA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

acd

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶17

Crl.Appeal No.1640 of 2004

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.23/2004 of Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-1), Ernakulam u/s.341 & 324 r/w.34 IPC. The charge against the appellants is that on 18.6.2002 at 5.30 p.m., the 1st accused with the common intention of committing culpable homicide of PW1 caught hold of PW1 and A2 stabbed with a knife on the abdomen, as a result, he sustained serious injury. Immediately, he was admitted in the hospital. Kalady Police registered a crime u/s.341 & 308 r/w.34 IPC and after completing investigation, Sub Inspector of Police, Kalady laid charge before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor, from there the case was committed to Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. Subsequently, it was made over to

¶21

Crl.Appeal No.1640/2004 2

¶22

Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam.

¶23

During trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses

¶24

and marked Exts.P1 to P5. MO1 was admitted as material object. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They examined DW1 to DW3 and marked Exts.D1 and D2. The learned Additional District Judge convicted the accused and sentenced under Section 341, 324 r/w.34 IPC. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this appeal.

¶25

During pendency of this appeal, 1st appellant died.

¶26

His charge is abated. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both parties have settled the matter after filing this appeal and they are leading a peaceful life at the place of occurrence. After the death of the 1st appellant father, the 2nd appellant is maintaining a good

¶27

relationship with the injured Prabhakaran.

¶28

Crl.Appeal No.1640/2004

¶29

¶30

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned

¶31

counsel for the appellants submitted that both parties have settled the matter out of Court and filed Crl.M.A.No.986/2016

¶32

u/s.320 Cr.P.C. The 2nd appellant also filed Crl.M.A.Nos.984/16 & 985/16 and the defacto complainant is impleaded as additional 2nd respondent. Adv. Sanitha appeared for the 2nd respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor identified the 2nd respondent. I have perused the Crl.M.A., in which both parties and both counsel have signed. When an offence is compounded by the parties, it is advisable to drop the criminal proceedings according to the settlement between the accused and the victim. When offence is compounded, it has the effect of an acquittal as per Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. with whom the offence has been compounded. Accordingly, Crl.M.A.No. 986/2016 is allowed.

¶33

In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the

¶34

Crl.Appeal No.1640/2004 4

¶35

trial Court u/s.341 & 324 r/w.34 IPC are quashed by invoking

¶36

S.482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the 2nd appellant is acquitted and set

¶37

at liberty.

¶38

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶39

acd

¶40

Crl.Appeal No.1640/2004 5

Kuttappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuttappan 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

Raju Vs State of Kerala

Narokodan Kunhan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Devadas.K.

Mohandas Vs State of Kerala