The Kerala High Court allowed the criminal revision petition partly. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence under Section 380 IPC was reduced to one year simple imprisonment and a fine. Detention set-off was granted.
Sentence reduced to one year simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000 fine. Prior detention counted as set-off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 700 of 2014 ()
------------------------------CRL.A 44/2013 of ADDL.SC - II, THALASSERY CC 4/2011 of C.J.M.,THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH
S/O.STEPHEN, PATHIRIYAD AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.700 of 2014
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was found guilty under Sections 454, 461 and 380 I.P.C. concurrently by the courts
below.
10.45 a.m., the revision petitioner trespassed into the house of PW2 and committed theft of 1½ sovereigns of gold ornaments from the almirah kept in the said house.
Crl.R.P.700/2014
:: 2 ::
prosecution, besides identifying MO1. No evidence was
adduced from the side of the revision petitioner.
Crl.R.P.700/2014
:: 3 ::
petitioner. The judgment of the trial court would show that
the revision petitioner was in custody from 10.1.2011 to 21.12.2011 in connection with this case. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that
the sentence awarded by the courts below under Section 380 I.P.C. can be modified and reduced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/(Rupees one thousand only) and in default to simple imprisonment for one month, to secure the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.
The sentence awarded by the courts below under Sections 454 and 461 I.P.C. stands confirmed.
The revision petitioner is entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Code for the period of his detention in
Crl.R.P.700/2014
:: 4 ::
connection with this case. The substantive sentence of
imprisonment shall run concurrently.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed in
part as above.
The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court on 1.12.2016 to suffer the sentence.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/.21.10..2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of conviction under Sections 454, 461 and 380 IPC warrants interference.
Whether the sentence under Section 380 IPC can be modified considering the facts and circumstances.
Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to set off for the period of detention under Section 428 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SANTHOSH
STATE OF KERALA
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
