Partly allowed

Syamala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/419/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that the concurrent finding of guilt under Section 379 IPC did not warrant interference. However, the sentence was modified from the original award to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.5,000, with default imprisonment of two months.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.5,000; default to simple imprisonment for two months.

Syamala Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/5TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 419 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crl.A 357/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM CC 1925/2008 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

SYAMALA,

¶9

KAVUVILA LEKSHAMVEEDU, PACHAKKADU, MANNAR MURI & VILLAGE, NEYYAR DAM, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. SYAM J SAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:-:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, C.K.PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

¶17

Crl.R.P. No.419 of 2014

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 27^th day of October 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The revision petitioner was convicted concurrently

¶22

under Section 379 I.P.C. by the courts below.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that on 10.12.2007 at

¶25

3.30 p.m., the revision petitioner committed theft of MO1

¶26

gold chain from the shop of PW1.

¶27

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW5 were examined

¶28

and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the revision petitioner.

¶29

The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and

¶30

Crl.R.P.419/2014

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the revision petitioner committed

¶33

the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioner. No material has been brought to the notice of this court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence or the concurrent finding by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner commited the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶34

No previous conviction has been proved against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner is a lady aged 40 years during the relevant period. Presently, she is aged

¶35

48 years. The revision petitioner committed theft of gold

¶36

Crl.R.P.419/2014

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

chain having a weight of 3 sovereigns. Considering the

¶39

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that

¶40

the sentence awarded by the courts below can be modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for two months under Section 379 I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. Accordingly, I order so.

¶41

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

¶42

The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 14.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.

¶43

Sd/- /-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

dl/.27.10.2016

¶47

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Syamala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syamala 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

Raghavendra Prasad Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sreekumar Vs the State of Kerala

E.Sudhakaran Vs P.Gopalakrishnan & Another

Khadeeja Banu Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shamsudeen Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala