Allowed

Philip v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/1986/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed Criminal Revision Petitions filed by multiple accused challenging their conviction. The Court observed that the dispute was settled amicably between the parties. Exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court set aside the earlier judgment, acquitted the accused, and directed them to be set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is set aside; accused/revision petitioners are acquitted and set at liberty by cancelling bail bonds.

Philip Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2486 OF 2004(A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 8/1997 DATED 15-06-2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 482/1993 DATED 11-12-1996 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I ,RANNI

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/5TH APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.8:

¶9

ANIL, MULLASSERIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKKARA MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BIJI MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUNAD, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PP SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1986/2004(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶20

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1986 OF 2004

¶22

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 8/1997 DATED 15-06-2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA

¶23

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 482/1993 DATED 11-12-1996 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I ,RANNI

¶24

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 & 6 &7/ACCUSED 3,4,6,7,8,& 10:

¶25

1 PHILIP, EDAYAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

¶26

2 REGI, PATHALIL HOUSE KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

¶27

3 ROY, PATHALIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

¶28

4 SREEKUMAR, MULLASSERIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKAKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

¶29

5 MATHEW, THENGUMTHADATHIL HOUSE KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

¶30

6 JOHNY, THENGUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, KUMARAMPEROOR, VADAKKEKARA MURI, VADASSERIKARA VILLAGE.

¶31

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJI MATHEW SRI.JOHNSON VARGHESE

¶32

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶33

¶34

SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR

¶35

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶36

STATE OF KERALA SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUNAD, REPRESENTED, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶37

ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PP SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA

¶38

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2486/2004(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶40

¶41

COMMON ORDER

¶42

[ Crl.Rev.Pet.2486/2004, Crl.Rev.Pet.1986/2004 ]

¶43

The above Criminal Revision Petitions are filed challenging the judgment dated 15.06.2004, in Crl.A.No.8/1997 of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which arose from the judgment dated 11.12.1996 in C.C.No.482/1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny.

¶44

There are all together 11 accused in the crime arising from crime no.109/1993 of the Perunad Police Station in Pathanamthitta district for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

¶45

The prosecution allegation is that on 20.08.1993 at about 7.30 p.m., at Vadasserikara Junction, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons for the

¶46

¶47

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶48

purpose of roting and in prosecution of their common object, they had wrongfully restrained PW3 and voluntarily cause hurt to PWs 1 to 3 and thereby committed the afore said offences.

¶49

All the accused except 5^th accused entered appearance before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny. 1^St , 2^nd , 5^th and 11^th accused had absconded. Hence the Trial Court split up the case against them and decided to proceed with the case against others. After the trial, the learned Magistrate, convicted and sentenced accused nos. 3, 4 & 6 to 10 to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each of the offences under Sections 143 and 341 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three months each for each of the offences under Sections 147,148, 323 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months

¶50

each for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for for one year each for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. The afore said

¶51

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶52

¶53

offences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶54

Challenging the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 11.12.1996, the accused nos. 3, 4, 6 to 10 filed Crl.A.No.8/1997, before the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part by judgment dated 15.06.2004, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused under Sections 148, 324 and 326 of the IPC. In respect of the other offences, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court was upheld.

¶55

The accused nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 & 10 filed the Crl.R.P.No.1986/2004 before this Court challenging the judgment dated 15.06.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. Accused no.8 filed Crl.A.No.2486/2004 before this Court. Pending proceedings, the accused nos. 9 and 10 passed away.

¶56

The learned counsel for the revision

¶57

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶58

¶59

petitioners Sri.Biji Mathew, submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by the intervention of the well wishers and relatives and no grievances whatsoever are surviving between the injured PWs 1 to 3 and the accused. Consequently, a settlement has been arrived at between the parties. PWs 1 to 3 filed Annexure A1, A2, & A3, affidavit respectfully before this Court, stating that the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri. Biji Mathew and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt. M.K. Pushpalatha appearing for the state.

¶61

Ongoing through the facts and circumstances

¶62

of the case, it is disclosed that no heinous or serious offences are involved. The dispute is essentially between the private individuals and it has no nexus or

¶63

connection action with public interest. No offence against the society is involved. The offences under

¶64

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶65

¶66

Sections 323 and 341 are compoundable in nature. The other offences alleged are not serious in nature. It has also been disclosed from the facts of the case that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, convicted and sentence of the accused for the offences under Sections 143 ,147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 of the IPC, without aid of 149 of the IPC.

¶67

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to accept the compromise arrived at between the parties and set aside the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2004 in Crl.A.No.8/1997 of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which arose from the judgment dated 11.12.1996, in C.C.No.482/1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny, and acquit the accused/revision petitioners in exercises the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Case against accused nos. 9 and 10 are abated. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by

¶68

Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.2486 & 1986 OF 2004

¶69

¶70

the Appellate Court by judgment dated 15.06.2004 in Crl.A.No.8/1997, which arose from the judgment dated 11.12.1996 in C.C.No.482/1993 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny, stand set aside. The revision petitioners/accused stand acquitted. Cancelling their bail bonds, this Court direct that they are set at liberty.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE

¶73

VPK

Philip v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philip 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

Seenath Vs Muhammedali

Nissar Vs State of Kerala

Ani.R.Nair Vs Sreema

Nhalil John Vs State of Kerala

Anil Vs State of Kerala

Deepak S/O Sasi Vs State of Kerala