Partly allowed

Sreekumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/1932/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed criminal revision petition in part, quashing lower court's imprisonment term and reducing sentence to time till court rising plus fines, while affirming conviction for assaulting public servant. Court ordered fine payment as compensation to injured witness.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of court; fines imposed as compensation to injured witness under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC.

Sreekumar 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1932 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 432/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM CC 643/2003 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEKUMAR, S/O.OMANA, ELLUVILA VEEDU,

¶9

KOTTAKKAL MURI, KOTTUKAL, KOLLAM.

¶10

ASHOKAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,

¶11

ELLUVILA VEEDU, KOTTAKKAL MURI, KOTTUKAL,, KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶13

SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. SRI RAMESH CHAND

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

¶20

Crl.R.P. No.1932 of 2010

¶21

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26^th day of October 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced

¶24

under Sections 451 and 323 I.P.C. by the courts below concurrently.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

PW1 is the injured in this case. PW2 and PW5 supported the evidence of PW1. The courts below relied on the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5 and the medical evidence of PW4 and Ext.P2 wound certificate and concurrently found that the revision petitioners committed

¶27

the offence under Sections 451 and 323 I.P.C., repelling the

¶28

Crl.R.P.1932/2010

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

contentions of the revision petitioners. No circumstance has been brought to the notice of this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners commited the offence under Sections 451 and 323 I.P.C., does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶31

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has pleaded for leniency. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioners. 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 till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.7,000/- each (Rupees seven

¶32

Crl.R.P.1932/2010

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 451 I.P.C. and a fine of

¶35

Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees one thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each under Section 323 I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so. If the fine amount is realised, the entire amount shall be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶36

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in part as above.

¶37

The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

dl/27.10..2016

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

PA to Judge

Sreekumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar 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

Kajamoideen Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Jose Joseph Vs Food Inspector

Sanil Kumar Vs Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.

K.Gopakumar Vs State

Raghavendra Prasad Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police