Partly allowed

Muhammed Iqbal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/4051/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition challenging conviction under IPC Sections 323, 324, and 341. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing imprisonment to till the rising of the Court and imposing a fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 10,000 each; accused directed to surrender.

Muhammed Iqbal 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

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4051 of 2009 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 105/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-1), KASARAGOD DATED 10-11-2009

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 446/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶9

MUHAMMED IQBAL @ IQBAL, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 25, PAIKANDAM HOUSE, BANGARA,

¶10

MANJESHWAR, VILLAGE,KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶11

MUHAMMED HANEEFA @ HANEEFA, AGED 29,

¶12

S/O. ABOOBACKER, VALIYAVALAPPU,

¶13

HOSEBETTU VILLAGE,, MANJESWARAM, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶14

M.A.ROUF, AGED 32, S/O. A.MATNMUNHI, VALIYAVALAPPU, HOSEBETTU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESWARAM POLICE, STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶21

Crl.R.P. No. 4051 of 2009

¶22

Dated this the 6^th day of October 2016 ORDER

¶23

The accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 446 of 2001 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, filed this revision petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Sections 323, 324 and 341 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 10.08.2001 at about 2.15 p.m., the revision petitioners along with the other accused, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained PW1 and attacked him causing injuries on him. The first accused used a pickaxe and the second accused used a PVC pipe to inflict injuries on PW1.

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

Crl.R.P. No. 4051 of 2009

¶27

Before the trial Court, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1 to MO3. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.

¶28

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners and concurrently found that the revision petitioners committed the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 324 read with 34 IPC, repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners. No material is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioners committed the above said offences does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

Crl.R.P. No. 4051 of 2009

¶31

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has pleaded for leniency. The first revision petitioner was aged 20 years, the 2nd revision petitioner was aged 24 years and the third revision petitioner was aged 27 years during the relevant period. They are presently aged 35 years, 39 years and 42 years respectively.

¶32

PW1 did not sustain any serious injury in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the period elapsed since the incident, 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 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 IPC, to secure the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. The sentence awarded by the appellate court on other counts stands confirmed. If the

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

Crl.R.P. No. 4051 of 2009

¶35

fine amount is realised, the entire amount shall be given to PW1 under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶36

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

¶37

The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on 21-11-2016, to suffer the sentence.

¶38

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

Ani/ 7-10-2016

Muhammed Iqbal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Iqbal 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

G.Sudheerbabu Vs State of Kerala

C K Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sreelal Vs State of Kerala

Ashish Philip Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Mukkom Police Station

Rajendran Unnithan Vs State

Biju John Vs State of Kerala