Allowed

Devidas @ Baby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/359/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala allowed a criminal revision petition challenging conviction and sentence. The Court upheld the conviction for grievous hurt but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 12,000 due to mitigating circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 12,000; petitioner to surrender on 1.11.2016.

Devidas @ Baby 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

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 359 of 2010

¶6

Crl.A 582/2004 of ADDL.SESSION COURT (FAST TRACK)-II, PALAKKAD CC 659/2002 of J.M.F.C.-II,PALAKKAD

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT::

¶8

DEVIDAS @ BABY, S/O.VELU, KONTHANKUZHI VEEDU, PULAPOTTA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE::

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶12

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.K.PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.359 of 2010

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19^th day of September 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The accused in C.C.No.659 of 2002 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Palakkad filed this revision petition challenging the finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under

¶21

Section 326 I.P.C.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that on 21.8.2002 at

¶24

about 1.15 p.m., the revision petitioner voluntarily caused grievous hurt on PW1 by striking with a sickle on his wrist and head. PW1 sustained fracture on his right wrist in the incident.

¶25

Crl.R.P.359/2010

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW11 were

¶28

examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked for the prosecution besides identifying MO1 sickle. No evidence was adduced from 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 Section 326 I.P.C., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No circumstance

¶30

has been brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that 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 petitioner committed the offence under Section 326 I.P.C., does not

¶31

Crl.R.P.359/2010

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

warrant any interference by this court.

¶34

6 . As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. The

¶35

revision petitioner was aged 46 years during the relevant period. Presently, he is aged 60 years. There is no allegation that the revision petitioner was involved in any other offence subsequent to the incident in this case. There is no previous conviction against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is the son of the sister of the mother of the de-facto complainant . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the period elapsed since the incident and the relationship between the parties and also taking into consideration of the fact that the revision petitioner is a first time offender, I am of

¶36

Crl.R.P.359/2010

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

the view that the sentence awarded by the appellate court can be further modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 326 I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so.

¶39

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

¶40

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial

¶41

court on 1.11.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

dl/19.9.2016

¶46

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Devidas @ Baby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas @ Baby 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

Jose V.O. Vs the Food Inspector, Chalakkudy Circle.

Sajeer Vs K P a Store

Prasad Kumar P. Vs State of Kerala

Ali P.A Vs the State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Imbichi Ashraf Vs State of Kerala