Partly allowed

Mukundan @ Kannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/2057/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for trespass and assault under Sections 452 and 323 IPC but modified the sentence. The High Court reduced the imprisonment term and awarded compensation, directing the petitioner to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-; fine also specified.

Mukundan @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2057 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 719/2009 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 564/2004 of J.M.F.C.-III,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 215/2004 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUKUNDAN @ KANNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O SANKARAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, CHEETHIKADAVU, PEECHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

SRI.K.AMAR RAGH

¶12

SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEECHI POLICE STATION,

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶20

Crl.R.P. No. 2057 of 2013

¶21

Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The accused in C.C. No. 564 of 2004 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 452 and 323 IPC.

¶24

Heard both sides.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that on 25-072004 at 1 p.m., the revision petitioner trespassed into the house of PW1 and beat the husband of PW1 on his face and chest.

¶26

-: 2 :-

¶27

Crl.R.P. No. 2057 of 2013

¶28

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked for the prosecution. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶29

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 452 and 323 IPC., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that 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 petitioner committed the above said offences does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶30

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for

¶31

-: 3 :-

¶32

Crl.R.P. No. 2057 of 2013

¶33

the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was aged 31 years during the relevant period. Presently he is aged 43 years. There is no allegation that the revision petitioner was involved in any other offence of similar nature subsequent to the registration of the present crime. 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 compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 452 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 IPC , to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. If the compensation is realised, the entire amount shall be given to PW1 under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

Crl.R.P. No. 2057 of 2013

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

ani/

¶40

/true copy/

¶41

P.S. to Judge

Mukundan @ Kannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukundan @ Kannan 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

Aneesh and Another Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs Excise Inspector

M. Sam Vs K. Robinson

Abdulla Kurikkal Vs Mampallil Abdurahim

C.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Saidali

Valsan Vs the State of Kerala