Allowed

Puthalan Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/4633/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HIGH COURT of Kerala allowed Criminal Revision Petition confirming conviction but modifying sentence. Court held that since the matter settled, fine-based imprisonment substituted for some offences and Section 354 sentence reduced to fine due to pre-amendment law applicability.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; Sentence modified to fines with alternative short imprisonment periods; imprisonment for Section 506(ii) and Section 354 repealed due to pre-amendment applicability.

Puthalan Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 602/2004 DATED 23-022007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 59/2000 DATED 29-10-2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,MALAPPURAM

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

PUTHALAN ABDUL SALAM

¶10

S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, KUZHIMANNA AMSOM, EDAKKAPARAMBA DESOM, ALUMCHUVADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ASI OF POLICE, KONDOTTY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2 ADDL.R2. SAIDALAVI AGED 48 YEARS S/O KUNJAYAMU, VARADIKKUTHU HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA-673641, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3 ADDL.R3. RAMLA AGED 47 YEARS W/O SAIDALAVI, VARADIKKUTHU HOUSE, KUZHIMANNA-673641, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 24.05.2019 IN

¶17

¶18

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

¶19

CRL.M.A.NO. 1/2018 IN CRL.R.P.NO.4633/2007.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.ANUROOP

¶21

SRI B JAYASURYA-SR PP

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No. 59/2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram.

¶27

The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506(ii) and 354 IPC by the trial court . Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offecne punishable under Section 354 IPC.

¶28

3 . The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court

¶29

¶30

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

¶31

of Session, Manjeri, challenging the conviction entered against him and the sentence imposed on him. However, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of guilty, conviction and sentence made against him by the courts below.

¶32

4 . On the basis of the plea made by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been settled between the de facto complainant and the other victim of the offences, they were impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3 in the revision petition.

¶33

5 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the second and the third respondents and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

6 . I have perused the judgments of the trial court as well as the appelate court. I find that the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence in the case. There is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below warranting interference with the judgments passed by them. Conviction of the revision petitioner is only to be confirmed.

¶35

7 . Regarding the sentence to be imposed on the

¶36

¶37

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

¶38

petitioner, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the second and the third respondents that the matter has been settled between the petitioner and the second and the third respondents, who are the victims of the offences. The second and the third respondents have also filed affidavits to the effect that the matter has been settled between them and the petitioner. Considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties subsequently, I find that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner can be modified.

¶39

8 . Though the revision petitioner is convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, I find that imposing a sentence of imprisonment on him for that offence is not mandatory. The incident had occurred on 14.01.2000. It is only several years later Section 354 IPC was amended and a sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than one year has been made mandatory for that offence.

¶40

9 . In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506(ii) and 354 IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as follows. He is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the

¶41

¶42

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

¶43

court and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the

¶44

rising of the court for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment till the rising of the Court shall run concurrently.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

rpk

Puthalan Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puthalan Abdul Salam 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

O.P.Achuthankutty Vs the State of Kerala

Krishnaprasad Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Ali Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Aleem, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu S.V. Vs Sathya Sreekumar

Muhammed Kunju, Vs John P. Mathew