Partly allowed

Valsan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Sept 2016Crl.Rev.Pet/617/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealed against conviction under Sections 324, 326 IPC for assault causing nasal fracture. Court upheld conviction but deemed original sentence excessive. Reduced sentence to current hearing date with compensation and suspended default term. Set aside sentence under Section 324 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Sentence under Section 326 IPC reduced to imprisonment till rising of court with compensation of Rs. 25,000 and three months in default; sentence under Section 324 IPC set aside.

Valsan Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | 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 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 617 of 2009 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 196/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC -II), THRISSUR

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 65/2001 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::

¶9

VALSAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA DESOM,, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE::

¶12

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

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

Crl.R.P. No. 617 of 2009

¶17

Dated this the 29th day of September, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The accused in C.C. No. 65 of 2001 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court, Thrissur, filed this Revision Petition challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 324 and 326 IPC.

¶20

2. Heard both sides.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that on 11-5-2001 at about 8.30 p.m., the revision petitioner beat PW1 with a stick causing injuries, including fracture of the nasal bone of PW1.

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

Crl.R.P. No. 617 of 2009

¶24

Before the trial court, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1 and MO2. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner.

¶25

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 Sections 324 and 326 IPC., 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 concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC, was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding by the courts below that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶26

-: 3 :-

¶27

Crl.R.P. No. 617 of 2009

¶28

As regards the sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for leniency. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the revision petitioner is a first time offender and also taking into consideration of the nature of the weapon used, 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 compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 326 IPC to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so. If the amount of compensation is realised, the entire amount shall be given to PW1 under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. Since sentence has been awarded under Section 326 IPC, no separate sentence is warranted under Section 324 IPC as PW1 is the only injured in this case. In the said circumstances, the sentence awarded by the courts below under Section 324 IPC stands set aside.

¶29

-: 4 :-

¶30

Crl.R.P. No. 617 of 2009

¶31

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

¶32

The Revision Petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court on 1-12-2016, to suffer the sentence.

¶33

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

JUDGE.

Ani/30-09-2016

/true copy/

P.S. to Judge

Valsan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsan v. the 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

Aneesh and Another Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs Excise Inspector

M. Sam Vs K. Robinson

Abdulla Kurikkal Vs Mampallil Abdurahim

Mukundan @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Abdul Hameed Vs Saidali