Partly allowed

Aneesh and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/317/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a criminal revision petition partly. While acquitting a conviction appeal by upholding the trial court's finding of guilt under Sections 324 and 34 IPC, the Court independently reduced the sentence to imprisonment until the rising of the court and a fine, with a rule for compensation to the victims.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each.

Aneesh and Another Vs 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 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 317 of 2010 ( )

¶6

Crl.A 839/2008 of 5 ADDL.S.C.EKM CC 8/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOCHI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANEESH, S/O.SHERLY BABU, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT PULLUMMASSERY VEEDU, WESTERN SIDE OF KTX, NARAKKAL KARA, NARAKKAL VILLAGE.

¶9

FEBIN, S/O.VAKACHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAKE VEEDU, EASTERN SIDE OF, PULIKKANATTU AUDITORIUM, EDAVANAKKADU, EDAVANAKKADU VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN MANNALY

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

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

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

Crl.R.P. No.317 of 2010

¶19

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28^th day of September 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The accused in C.C. No.8 of 2006 on the files of the

¶22

court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-1, Kochi filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts

¶23

below under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that on 15.9.2005 at

¶26

6.15 p.m., the revision petitioners attacked PW1 and PW2

¶27

with MO1 bolt, causing injuries on them.

¶28

Crl.R.P.317/2010

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW7 were examined

¶31

and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the revision petitioners.

¶32

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners. No circumstance is available before the Court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding by the courts below is perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the offence under

¶33

Crl.R.P.317/2010

¶34

: 3 :

¶35

Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C, does not warrant

¶36

any interference by this court.

¶37

6 . As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for

¶38

the revision petitioners has pleaded for leniency. The revision petitioners were aged 20 and 22 years respectively during the relevant period. The incident in this case was not a pre-meditated incident. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioners. There is also no allegation that the revision petitioners were involved in any other offence of similar nature subsequent to the registration of the present crime. The injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 are only simple injuries. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can be

¶39

Crl.R.P.317/2010

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so. If the fine amount is realised, an amount of Rs.12,000/shall be given to PW2 and an amount of Rs.8,000/- shall be given to PW1 under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code.

¶42

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

¶43

The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

dl/28.9.2016

¶47

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Aneesh and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh and Another 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

C.P.Martin Vs Food Inspector, Mananthawady

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

Viswambaran Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs Excise Inspector

M. Sam Vs K. Robinson

Abdulla Kurikkal Vs Mampallil Abdurahim