Partly allowed

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017Crl.Rev.Pet/2703/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition partly. It acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC due to insufficient evidence but confirmed the conviction for assault under Section 323 IPC while substituting imprisonment with a fine.

What did the court decide?

Accused acquitted of Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC. Conviction under Section 323 IPC confirmed but imprisonment sentence set aside in favour of fine.

Sreenivasan 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

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2703 of 2005 ( ) ---------------------------------

¶6

IN CRA 360/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

IN CC 411/2000 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶9

1. SREENIVASAN, S/O. RANGANATHA PRABHU, KALAPURAKOVILAKAM, SRINAGAPURAM,, KALAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOR TALUK.

¶10

2. RAJESH, S/O. RANGANATHA PRABHU, KALAPURAKOVILAKAM, KALAMALESWARAM VILLAGE,, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT::

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

Crl.R.P.No. 2703 of 2005

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The revision petitioners herein are the two accused in C.C.No. 411 of 2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor. They faced prosecution under Sections 341, 323 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that at about 7.45 p.m. on 11.05.2000, they wrongfully restrained one Raveendra Shenoy in front of the Sreekrishna temple at Sringapuram, intimidated him, and also assaulted him due to some previous enmity. The Police registered the crime on the basis of the complaint given by the said Raveendra Shenoy, and after investigation, the Police submitted final report in court.

¶24

The two accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to them. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses in the trial court, and

¶25

Crl.R.P.No. 2703 of 2005

¶26

-2-

¶27

proved Exts. P1 to P14 documents.

¶28

The accused denied the incriminating

¶29

circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and projected a defence that this is a false case. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

¶30

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, and to pay a fine of 1,000/- each under Section 323 IPC, to₹ pay a fine of 500/- each under Section 341 IPC, and to pay a₹ fine of 1,500/- each under Section 506(i) IPC. ₹

¶31

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thrissur, with Crl.A.No. 360 of 2004. In appeal, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Now the accused are before this Court in revision challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence on the ground that the uncorroborated evidence of the

¶32

Crl.R.P.No. 2703 of 2005

¶33

-3-

¶34

complainant cannot be accepted as legal evidence.

¶35

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find that there is no legal evidence in this case to prove the offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC.. PW1 is the defacto complainant, Raveendra Shenoy. He has given evidence consistent with the statements in the Ext.P1 complaint on material particulars. PW2, examined as an independent witness, turned hostile. Another witness cited by the prosecution as independent witness was not examined. PW5 is the doctor who examined PW1, and issued Ext.P4 wound certificate. The case of the complainant is that he was fisted on his belly by the first accused, and he was beaten on his back by the second accused with hand. In the Ext.P4 wound certificate, the doctor has noted a simple injury on the infra-scapular region. Of course, it is true that there is no corroborating evidence. The question is whether the evidence given by the sole witness is acceptable and believable. I find no reason to disbelieve PW1, or to reject his evidence.

¶36

Crl.R.P.No. 2703 of 2005

¶37

-4-

¶38

The evidence given by PW1 is not fully convincing and satisfactory to prove the essentials of the offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC. At the same time, he is definite and consistent regarding the assault made by the two accused, and the simple injuries inflicted by them. The incident happened at about 7.45 p.m. It has come out in evidence that there was load shedding at the time of the incident, but PW1 clearly explained that he saw and identified the accused in the light of the sacred lamp around the temple. On this aspect, the evidence stands not discredited. I find that a clear case of assault punishable under Section 323 IPC stands well proved in this case.

¶39

Now the question of sentence. Under Section 323 IPC, the court below has imposed sentence till rising of the court, and also the maximum fine sentence under Section 323 IPC. I feel that the fine sentence alone will suffice in this case as the adequate sentence.

¶40

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioners are found not guilty of the

¶41

Crl.R.P.No. 2703 of 2005

¶42

-5-

¶43

offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of those offences in revision. The conviction and sentence against them under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC will stand set aside. But the conviction under Section 323 IPC is confirmed. However, the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court imposed by the court below under Section 323 IPC will stand set aside, and the fine sentence under Section 323 IPC with default sentence thereon is maintained.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

ds 13.12.2017

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Sreenivasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan 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

Gangadharan Vs the State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala

Scaria Vs State of Kerala

Pandiyamma Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala