Partly allowed

Baby @Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/3173/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed against conviction and sentence for causing grievous hurt. High Court affirmed conviction but reduced punishment under Section 325 IPC to imprisonment until court rising and a fine, noting the appellant's age and lack of premeditation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 325 IPC modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.10,000.

Baby @Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | 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 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3173 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CRL.A 279/2007 of SPL.C SPE/CBI-I&3 ADD.DC.ADD MACT,EKM CC 1578/2003 of J.M.F.C.-I MUVATUPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

BABY @ THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. DEVASSY, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE,, VELLARAMKALLU COLONY, KALLORKADU VILLAGE,, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.DEVAN K.MENON SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA

¶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 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.3173 of 2010

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25^th day of October 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The revision petitioner was found guilty under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C. by the trial court. The trial court convicted and sentenced the revision petitioner

¶21

thereunder.

¶22

In the appeal, the conviction and sentence were

¶23

altered to Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that on 7.8.2002 at

¶26

5.30 p.m., the revision petitioner caused grievous hurt on

¶27

Crl.R.P.3173/2010

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

the shoulder bone of PW1 with a stone. Thereafter, the revision petitioner fisted and kicked PW1, when PW1 fell down.

¶30

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶31

The appellate court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation

¶32

Crl.R.P.3173/2010

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

of evidence or the finding by the appellate court was

¶35

perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the

¶36

finding by the appellate court that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C.

¶37

does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶38

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. No previous conviction has been proved against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was aged 36 years during the relevant period. Presently, he is aged 50 years. It appears that the incident in this case was not a pre-meditated incident. The fracture was sustained when the revision petitioner pelted stone at PW1. Considering the facts and

¶39

Crl.R.P.3173/2010

¶40

: 4 :

¶41

circumstances of the case, including the period elapsed since the incident, I am inclined to modify and reduce the sentence awarded by the appellate court under Section 325 I.P.C. to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months, to secure the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.

¶42

Since PW1 is the only injured in this case, there is no need to sentence the revision petitioner under Section 323 I.P.C. as the sentence has been already awarded under Section 325 I.P.C. If the fine amount is realised, the entire amount shall be given to PW1 under Section 357(1) (b) of the Code.

¶43

Crl.R.P.3173/2010

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in

¶46

part as above.

¶47

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial

¶48

court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

dl/25.10..2016

// True Copy //

PA to Judge

Crl.R.P.3173/2010

: 6 :

Baby @Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby @Thomas 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

Sobhana Vs State of Kerala and Another

Parameswaran Vs State of Kerala

Kandambeth Chandran Vs Ibrahim @ Ibrahimkutty V.V.

Ambu T. Vs Kerala State

N.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Sathiyakumar Vs State of Kerala & Anr.