Partly allowed

Chandrasekharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/2554/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenges a conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt. The High Court set aside the six-month imprisonment, remitted fines to victims, and reduced the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court, directing compensation payment first.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court; fine remitted and reduced to Rs. 10,000 to one victim and Rs. 5,000 each to two others.

Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2554 of 2003 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 47/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (SPL. COURT), KOTTAYAM DATED 24.07.2003

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 130/1997 of J.M.F.C.-II, KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 03.01.2001

¶8

CRL.REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/FIRST ACCUSED :-

¶9

CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNAN PILLAI, VELANPARAMBIL VEEDU, ERUMELY TOWN, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :-

¶12

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

¶13

BY SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rkj

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

================================ Crl.R.P.No.2554 of 2003

¶18

================================

¶19

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in C.C.No.130 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally. He and his brother faced prosecution on the allegation that they assaulted their sister, and their nephews at about 10.30 a.m. on 11.12.1996 at the compound of the hotel run by them, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on their body with weapons like iron rod, stick, etc. The crime was registered by the police on the complaint of one of the nephews. After investigation the police submitted final report under Sections 324, 326 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in the trial court, and proved Exts.P1 to P11 documents. MO1 to MO4 properties including the weapon of offence were also identified during trial. The accused maintained a stand of total denial, when

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.2554 of 2003

¶24

¶25

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any evidence in defence. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused not guilty under Sections 323 and 326 IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences. But they were found guilty under Section 324 IPC. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each by judgment dated 03.01.2001.

¶26

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, they filed separate appeals before the Court of Session, Kottayam. The first accused brought Crl.Appeal 47 of 2001, and the second brought Crl.Appeal No.34 of 2001. In appeal, the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam found the second accused not guilty. Accordingly, his appeal was allowed, and he was acquitted. But the conviction and sentence against the first accused was confirmed, and accordingly, Crl.Appeal No.47/2001 brought by him was dismissed by judgment dated 24.07.2003. The factual finding of the trial court that none of the accused had used iron road in the incident was reversed by the learned appellate Judge. Now the first accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence against him.

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.2554 of 2003

¶28

¶29

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

¶30

the entire materials, I find that there is no scope for interference in revision in the conviction made by the courts below concurrently, on the ground of any illegality or irregularity. PW1 to PW4 are the persons who sustained injuries in the incident. Ofcourse, it is true that the independent witnesses turned hostile. PW1 is the first informant who made the Ext.P1 complaint, PW2 is his mother, PW3 is his brother, and PW4 is the wife of PW3. All these persons sustained injuries in the alleged incident. This is well proved by the medical evidence given by PW8 and PW12. It is proved by the Ext.P3 wound certificate, and the Ext.P10 discharge certificate, and also the evidence of PW12 that PW2 had sustained compound comminuted fracture of left ulna besides other simple injuries in the alleged incident. Ext.P2 wound certificate contains the details of the injury sustained by PW1, and Ext.P5 certificate contains the details of the injury sustained by PW3. In the absence of proper evidence, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty under Section 326 IPC. The State did not file appeal against the acquittal under Section 326 IPC.

¶31

PW1 to PW4 are definite and consistent regarding the alleged incident, the way in which it happened,

¶32

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.2554 of 2003

¶34

the weapon used by the accused, and also the injury sustained by them. I find no reason to reject the evidence given by PW1 to PW4, or to disbelieve them. All the witnesses are consistent that the injuries were inflicted on the body of PW1 to PW4 by the revision petitioner with the MO1 iron bar. Nothing could be brought out in the cross-examination of the witnesses to discredit their evidence. I find that their evidence is acceptable and believable, and their evidence clearly proves the offence under Section 324 IPC as against this revision petitioner.

¶35

Now the question of sentence. The revision petitioner is the direct brother of PW2, and he is the uncle of PW1 and PW3. Ofcourse it is true that some civil dispute between the parties was pending at the time of the incident, and this dispute actually led to the alleged incident. The revision petitioner must be now aged about 70 years. The person who sustained severe injury is none other than his own sister, and it appears that the dispute now stands somewhat settled. It is submitted that the parties are now on cordial terms. The alleged incident happened in 1996. On a consideration of all the relevant aspects including the present age of the revision petitioner, his relationship with the injured, the present circumstances of the parties and their

¶36

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.2554 of 2003

¶38

relationship, and the long lapse of 21 years since the date of incident, I feel it appropriate to modify and reduce the sentence reasonably. I feel that a direction to pay compensation to the victims, besides the nominal sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court will be the adequate and reasonable sentence in the present circumstances.

¶39

In the result, the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 324 IPC in C.C.No.130 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally, confirmed in appeal by the Court of Session, Kottayam in Crl.Appeal 47 of 2001 will stand set aside, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the substantive sentence imposed by the court below will stand modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court, under Section 324 IPC. In lieu of such reduction and modification, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW2, and Rs.5,000/- each to PW1 and PW3 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In case of failure to pay the compensation, the revision petitioner will have to undergo default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks to serve out the sentence, and to make payment of the compensation, on failure of which, steps shall

¶40

Crl.R.P.No.2554 of 2003

¶41

¶42

be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence, and to recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Chandrasekharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekharan Pillai 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin.K.G Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs State of Kerala

Anubharathi Vs the State of Kerala

G. Soman Vs State

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anwar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur Police Station