Partly allowed

Ebenaizar Parker @ Bhaskar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a criminal revision petition challenging lower court convictions for theft and receiving stolen property. The High Court upheld the findings of guilt but granted a sentence modification due to the petitioners' advanced age, reducing the term and awarding a fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default terms; finding of guilt affirmed.

Ebenaizar Parker @ Bhaskar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3 of 2012 ()

¶6

----------------------------Crl.A 328/2010 of I ADDL.S.C.,PALAKKAD CC 430/2009 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

EBENAIZAR PARKER @ BHASKAR AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.THINDAL DAVID, KALVAI STREET, NEAR CSI CHURCH, KEERIMEDE VILLAGE, OCHERI PO., ARKONAM, TAMIL NADU.

¶9

MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MAMMUTTY, KAKKATIL (H) MANIKKAPARAMBU, THALLACHIRA, THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.M.NOOHUKUNJU SAHIB SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.SWATHY DAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.3 of 2012

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30^th day of September 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The first revision petitioner (third accused in the crime) was found guilty under Sections 411 and 201 I.P.C. concurrently by the courts below and the second revision petitioner (first accused in the crime) was found guilty under Section 379 I.P.C. concurrently by the courts below.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that on 20.2.2008 at

¶23

about 6.30 p.m., the second revision petitioner and the second accused in the crime committed the theft of a motor

¶24

bike bearing Reg. No.KL 9H-1660 valued at Rs.23,000/-

¶25

Crl.R.P.3/2012

¶26

2 <

¶27

from the possession of PW1. Thereafter, the same was sold to the first revision petitioner, who purchased the same

¶28

knowing that the said vehicle was the stolen property.

¶29

The courts below appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and concurrently found that the first revision petitioner had committed the offence under Sections 411 and 201 I.P.C. and the second revision petitioner had committed the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners. No material is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the

¶30

Crl.R.P.3/2012

¶31

3 <

¶32

concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the above said offences.

¶33

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has pleaded for leniency. The first revision petitioner was aged 73 years and the second revision petitioner was aged 40 years during the relevant period. Presently, the first revision petitioner is aged 81 years and the second revision petitioner is aged 48 years. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the courts below against the respective accused can be modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for six

¶34

Crl.R.P.3/2012

¶35

4 <

¶36

months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days under Section 411 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for two months under Section 201 I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days under Section 379 I.P.C., with a direction that the substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently, to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so. The revision petitioners are entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of the detention in connection with this case.

¶37

Crl.R.P.3/2012

¶38

5 <

¶39

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶40

part as above.

¶41

The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial

¶42

court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶45

dl/.30.9.2016

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

Ebenaizar Parker @ Bhaskar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ebenaizar Parker @ Bhaskar 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

Valsan Vs the State of Kerala

Sethumadhavan Vs N.Krishnan & Another

C.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Saidali

Shahul Hameed Vs T.P.Hamsa

Rajmohan @ Vamban Vs State of Kerala

Mathai @ Jobi Vs State of Kerala