Partly allowed

Puthiyedath Rameshan v. State

Kerala HC20 Jan 2016CRL.A/40/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 323 IPC for an assault arising from a parking dispute involving auto-drivers, the High Court affirmed the trial court's finding of guilt while reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and maintaining the compensation order.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed under Section 323 IPC. Sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. Compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

Puthiyedath Rameshan Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 40 of 2008

¶6

SESSION CASE NO.966/2006 OF SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER ACT 33 OF 1989, THALASSERRY

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

PUTHIYEDATH RAMESHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, DRIVER, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM, ADATT DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶10

SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JUSTIN JACOB

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

--------------------------------------Crl.A No.40 of 2008

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2016

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The appellant herein is the 3^rd accused in S.C No.966/2006 of the Court of Session, Thalassery, disposed of on 13.12.2007 by the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case against the second accused was split up and refiled when he absconded during the trial process. The other three accused, including the appellant herein faced trial on a charge under Sections 341, 354, 324, 294(b) and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant herein and the others pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The victim of offence is an autorickshaw driver. Her husband is also an autorickshaw driver. The appellant and the co-accused are also drivers plying their autorickshaws at the same station. The incident alleged in this case arose out of some dispute between a section of auto drivers and the victim regarding the parking of autorickshaw.

¶22

¶23

Crl.A No.40 of 2008

¶24

The prosecution alleges that in connection with the said dispute the appellant herein and his co-accused formed a group of auto drivers and assaulted the victim Chitralekha at about 8 am on 14.10.2005 at Kunhimangalam, intimidated her, used filthy language against her and also abused and humiliated her as a member of scheduled caste.

¶25

The appellant and the co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses including the victim and her husband, and also proved Exts.P1 to P15 documents. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence one of the witnesses was examined to prove the injuries sustained by the appellant in the alleged incident, and Exts.D1 to D8 were marked. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned trial judge found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not satisfactory and convincing to prove any of the offences alleged, and that, what is at the most convincingly proved is the offence under Section 323 IPC. The court's finding is that the victim of offence was assaulted by the appellant herein on 14.10.2005 at 8 am, at Kunhimangalam in connection with a dispute between two sections of autorickshaw drivers, and that she had sustained

¶26

Crl.A No.40 of 2008 3

¶27

some simple injuries in the said incident. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 and 4 were found not guilty of any of the offences, and they were acquitted of all the offences by the learned trial judge. The appellant herein was convicted under Section 323 IPC, but he was acquitted of the other offences, by judgment dated 13.12.2007. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 323 IPC, and was also directed to pay a compensation of 25,000/- to the₹ victim examined as PW1, under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The said judgment of conviction is under challenge in this appeal.

¶28

On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, and also on a perusal of the prosecution records, I find no scope for interference in the findings made by the court below. The main evidence relied on by the prosecution is that of the victim examined as PW1, and her husband examined as PW8. PW9 to PW11 examined as independent witnesses turned hostile. The victim of offence gave convincing and satisfactory evidence proving the alleged incident. Without any delay she was examined at the hospital by PW2 who issued Ext.P3 wound certificate which contains the details of the simple injuries sustained by the victim. It stands proved that she had sustained a contusion on the left side of neck, another contusion

¶29

¶30

Crl.A No.40 of 2008

¶31

on the occipital region of the head, and she had also pain on the back of head.

¶32

I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence given

¶33

by the victim. She is quite consistent and categoric regarding the assault made by the appellant herein. She is well supported by her husband examined as PW8. It is submitted that his evidence is artificial because he had not been anywhere there, at or near the scene of incident. But an appreciation of the evidence given by PW8 shows that he had witnessed the incident. His evidence is that when he came to the scene seeing some drivers gathered there, he saw his wife being assaulted by the accused. I find no reason to disbelieve his evidence. PW8 has well supported the victim on all material particulars. The evidence given by the victim and her husband is well convincing that the victim was assaulted by the appellant herein in connection with a dispute between two rival factions concerning the parking of authorickshaws, and that in the said incident some simple injuries were sustained by the victim. The injuries are proved by PW2 and Ext.P3 wound certificate.

¶34

The case of the accused is that he had also sustained some injuries in the incident. He examined DW1 and proved Ext.D6 wound certificate. What is bought out is only that

¶35

Crl.A No.40 of 2008 5

¶36

he was manhandled by some police persons. There is nothing to show that the accused had sustained any injury in the alleged incident. In such a situation, the prosecution is not bound or expected to explain the injuries found on the body of the accused.

¶37

On an appreciation of the evidence, I find that a clear case of Section 323 IPC stands well proved here. The case was properly investigated by the police. Just because the court found against the prosecution as regards all the other offences, including the major offences alleged under the SC/ST Act, the versions of the victim and her husband proving a simple incident of assault cannot be disbelieved by this Court. I find no reason for any interference in the findings made by the court below. The conviction under Section 323 IPC is only to be confirmed in appeal.

¶38

The sentence imposed by the court below is simple imprisonment for one month under Section 323 IPC. With the object of doing substantial justice to the injured, the trial court has directed the appellant to pay a compensation of ₹25,000/- to the victim under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In the particular facts and circumstances, I find no reason for interference in the said direction. When such a direction is

¶39

¶40

Crl.A No.40 of 2008

¶41

there, and when payment of compensation will do justice to the victim, I feel that the jail sentence can be reduced to the minimum possible under the law. To that very limited extent, the sentence can be modified, and the appeal can be allowed in part.

¶42

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the very limited extent of modifying the sentence. The conviction made by the court below against the appellant under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will stand confirmed. The substantive sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 323 IPC will stand reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation, with the default sentence thereon, is maintained. The appellant will surrender before the trial court within a month, and serve out the sentence and make payment of compensation, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence, and to recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Puthiyedath Rameshan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puthiyedath Rameshan v. State

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

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Trustine George Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Company (P) Ltd. Vs Manikandan S.

K.Prakasan Vs C.v.Sagar

N.P.Mohaan Vs K.S.Shreejesh