Dismissed

VELAYUDHAN,S/O.NANU,C.NO.6810,C.P.,TVM. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/1271/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 323, 324, and 326 IPC for acid throwing and assault. The court upheld the lower courts' findings regarding the voluntary nature of the acts.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's conviction and sentence under Sections 323, 324, and 326 IPC were upheld; revision petition dismissed.

VELAYUDHAN,S/O.NANU,C.NO.6810,C.P.,TVM. Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2003

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 322/2001 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 04-04-2002

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 975/1997 OF J.M.F.C.-II, CHERTHALA DATED 28-09-2001

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶9

VELAYUDHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.NANU, C.NO.6810, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695012.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.SUMA G. (STATE BRIEF)

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI ALEX M THOMBRA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2003

¶17

..2..

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

In CC No. 975 of 1997 the petitioner was

¶20

convicted of the offences under Sections 323,

¶21

324 & 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Cherthala. For the offence under Section 323 IPC he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 326 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for

¶22

a further period of six months. The trial

¶23

court directed to pay each of the victims Rs.1,000/each if the fine was

¶24

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2003

¶25

..3..

¶26

realized. Crl.Appeal No. 322 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The conviction and sentence are challenged in this Revision Petition.

¶27

The prosecution case is that at about 6 in the morning on 14.09.1997, the petitioner assaulted PW2 with his hand. Hearing the cry of PW2, his brothers (PW1, PW3 & PW4) came rushing to the spot. The petitioner returned to his house, came back with a bottle which contained acid and poured the acid on PW1 to PW4 causing them burn injuries. The face of PW2 was disfigured.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

It cannot be disputed that PW1 to PW4 sustained burn injuries and it caused disfiguration of the face of PW2. This fact stands proved by medical evidence.

¶30

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2003

¶31

..4..

¶32

PW1 to PW4 brothers are the victims in the case. They deposed to the incident. The

¶33

incident started with the petitioner's beating PW2 with hand. Hearing the cry of PW2, his brother (PW1) rushed to the spot. Immediately, the petitioner went back to his house. Meanwhile, PW3 & PW4 also came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to the place of occurrence from his house with a bottle containing acid. He threw the acid on PW1 to PW4. This version is corroborated by the testimony of PW6, PW7 & PW9. Both the courts below accepted the testimony of PW1 to PW4, PW6, PW7 & PW9. The petitioner did not dispute his presence at the place of occurrence. In his examination under

¶34

Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that at the relevant time, he was assaulted by PW1 to PW4 causing him serious injuries on his head and the case was falsely got registered to set up

¶35

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2003

¶36

..5..

¶37

a defence in the case registered by the police

¶38

in connection with the assault on him. There is no evidence to support the version of the petitioner. I do not find any reason to disagree with the courts below that the petitioner voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 by beating with his hand. This attracts Section 323 IPC. The burn injuries sustained by PW2 disfigured his face. This attracts Section 326 IPC. The burn injuries of PW1, PW3 & PW4 caused them simple injuries. This attracts

¶39

Section 324 IPC. So, the courts below are

¶40

fully justified in entering a finding that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 323, 324 & 326 IPC. Having regard to

¶41

the nature of the offences, I have no doubt that the sentences imposed on the petitioner are appropriate. It is seen from the report of the Superintendent of Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram that the

¶42

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1271 of 2003

¶43

petitioner was released after he had undergone imprisonment.

¶44

In the result, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

Bka/15.12.2018

VELAYUDHAN,S/O.NANU,C.NO.6810,C.P.,TVM. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

VELAYUDHAN,S/O.NANU,C.NO.6810,C.P.,TVM. 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

J.Suresh Kumar B.E. Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Siddique 2 Siyad Vs Aneesh T.M

Rajesh Khanna Vs State of Kerala

Unni Vengeri Vs Circle Inspector Ofr Police, Kasaba