Partly allowed

Augustine @ Appachan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1661/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction. It affirmed the conviction but reduced the imprisonment terms to match time already undergone, imposed specific fines, and ordered fine proceeds to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment equal to time already undergone; fines imposed under IPC; fine proceeds to award victim under Cr.P.C.

Augustine @ Appachan Vs the State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1661 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 309/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KOTTAYAM DATED 24-05-2013

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 765/2003 of J.M.F.C.,PALA DATED 10-06-2010

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

AUGUSTINE @ APPACHAN, S/O. JOSEPH POOMKOMBIL VEED, VELLILAPPALLI KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

..................................................... Crl.R.P. No. 1661 of 2013

¶17

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The accused in C.C. No. 765 of 2003 on the files of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pala, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 452, 427, 341, 323 and 324 IPC.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 26-042003 at about 12.30 p.m., the revision petitioner criminally trespassed into the bed room of the house of PW1 and inflicted injuries on her left chest and below the left shoulder with MO1 knife. He also wrongfully restrained PW1. The petitioner also fisted on her right

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

Crl.R.P. No. 1661 of 2013

¶24

shoulder. The petitioner also caused a loss to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to PW1, by committing mischief.

¶25

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts. P1 to P11 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1 to MO6. DW1 to DW3 were examined for the defence. Ext. X1 was also marked for the defence.

¶26

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 452, 427,341, 323 and 324 IPC, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below suffers from any infirmity, warranting interference by this Court. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the above said offences does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

Crl.R.P. No. 1661 of 2013

¶29

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The revision petitioner was in custody from 23-5-2003 to 124-2003 in connection with this case. The revision petitioner was 47 years during the relevant period. Presently, he is aged 60 years. No previous conviction has been proved against the revision petitioner. There is also no allegation that the revision petitioner was involved in any other offence of similar nature subsequent to the registration of the present crime. The revision petitioner and PW1 are respectively the tenant and the landlord. Their dispute has also been finally settled, submitted by the learned counsel. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to imprisonment to the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 452 IPC, fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to simple

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

Crl.R.P. No. 1661 of 2013

¶32

imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for four months under Section 324 IPC to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. The sentence awarded by the courts below under Sections 341 and 427 IPC stands confirmed. If the fine amount is realised, the entire amount amount shall be given to PW1 under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶33

In the result, this Revision Petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶34

The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on 1-12-2016, to suffer the sentence.

¶35

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

ani/ 19-02-2016

/true copy/

P.S. to Judge

-: 5 :-

Crl.R.P. No. 1661 of 2013

¶41

“The following corrections are made in the final order dated 27-09-2016 in Crl.R.P. No. 1661/2013, vide order dated 28-102016 in Crl.M.A. No. 6531/2016 in Crl.R.P. No. 1661/2013:

¶42

The words “Chief Judicial Magistrate” occurring in the 2^nd line of Ist paragraph of the final order mentioned above are corrected and substituted as “Judicial Magistrate of Firsr Class”.

¶43

The date “12-4-2003” occurring in the 2^nd sentence of 6^th paragraph of the final order mentioned above is corrected and substituted as “10-06-2003”

¶44

/true copy/

¶45

P.S. to Judge

Augustine @ Appachan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Augustine @ Appachan v. the 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

Ramakrishnan Vs Food Inspector, Mannarkkad

P.M.Baby Vs Food Inspector, Kanhanged

P.M.Murugesan Vs Chief Food Inspector, Mobile Vigilance Squad

C.P.Martin Vs Food Inspector, Mananthawady

M/S.Maharaj Timber & Saw Mill Vs P.Muhammed

Viswambaran Vs State of Kerala