Allowed

Manoharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2018Crl.Rev.Pet/702/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The court set aside the conviction for assaulting with a chopper (Section 324 IPC) due to lack of evidence regarding the weapon's nature. The conviction was substituted with assault (Section 323 IPC), and the sentence for trespass/assault (Section 452 IPC) was confirmed but reduced.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under S. 324 IPC set aside; substituted with S. 323 IPC. Sentence modified. Conviction under S. 452 IPC confirmed with reduced sentence. Compensation awarded upon realization of fines.

Manoharan Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶3

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 702 of 2018

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 144/2012 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 98/2007 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS -II, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 08-08-2012

¶7

IN CRIME NO. 82/2007 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/SOLE ACCUSED :-

¶9

MANOHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, THADATHEL VEEDU, CHIRAPPURAM, KOTTATHOOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE :-

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

R BY SRI.C.S.HRITHIK, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SMA

¶16

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

Crl.R.P.No .702 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2018

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 IPC in C.C.No.98 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The allegation against him was that on 10.03.2007 at about 2.30 PM he tresspassed into the shop room of PW1 and assaulted him with a chopper causing him of an injury on the left upper arm. The learned Magistrate convicted him of both offences, and for each of the offences sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. He also directed that the sentences shall run concurrently and if the fine was realised Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the victim. Criminal Appeal No.144 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The correctness is challenged in this Crl.R.P.

¶21

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

¶22

There is no dispute that at the relevant time PW1 sustained an injury on his left upper arm at his shop room at about 2.30 PM. According to the prosecution the petitioner was the assailant. The petitioner had been known to PW1 for a long time. The incident happened in broad day light. So there could not have been any mistake in the

¶23

Crl.R.P.No .702 of 2018 2

¶24

identity of the assailant. Both the courts below rightly held that PW1 sustained injury when the petitioner assaulted him.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of the injury does not justify the conclusion that the weapon was a chopper. He further submits that PW1 had told PW4 Doctor who examined him that he sustained injury when he was assaulted with a 'vadival'.

¶26

The only injury sustained by PW1 was an abrasion of the size 10 X 0.5 cm. It is doubtful whether this was caused with a chopper, which is a heavy and sharp edged weapon. The weapon was not recovered and produced in the case. In Exhibit P1 F.I.Statement the allegation is that the weapon was a chopper. The learned counsel has brought to my notice the statement in Exhibit P2 wound certificate that the doctor was told by PW1 that the weapon was a 'vadival'. The explanation given by PW1 is that it was not he who told the doctor about the cause of injury but by a stranger. But when the doctor was cross examined no question was put to him with regard to the statement that the weapon was a 'vadival'. So the learned counsel cannot be heard to say there is a discrepancy in the evidence available in the case. But it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that the weapon was a heavy weapon like a chopper. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that the weapon was a dangerous weapon. So the conviction under Section 324 IPC cannot be upheld. It appears that only Section 323 IPC is attracted. The sentence should be modified. The sentence involved for the offence under Section 452 IPC is simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Having regard to the nature of the case it appears that the

¶27

Crl.R.P.No .702 of 2018 3

¶28

sentence is harsh. This sentence also will be modified. It appears that simple imprisonment till the rising the court and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 452 IPC and simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC are sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

¶29

In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 452 IPC is confirmed. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC is set aside. He is convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC. For each of the offences he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. For the offence under section 323 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three days and for the offence under Section 452 IPC to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. If the amount is realised, Rs.1,000/shall be paid to PW1 as compensation.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

PA TO JUDGE

¶34

SMA

Manoharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan 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

Salim Vs a.Abdul Rahiman

J. Thomas and Company Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Abdulla Vs the State of Kerala

Betsy Elizabeth Jaison Vs State of Kerala

Jaison John Vs State of Kerala

V. Lijith Vs State of Kerala