Dismissed

Chandrabose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/2971/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a criminal revision petition filed by an appellant against the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 324, 326, and 447 IPC. The court noted the absence of representation and discharged its obligation to call for records, finding no sufficient grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, thereby dismissing th

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Records are sent back to the lower court.

Chandrabose Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2971 OF 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 289/1998 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 583/1995 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

CHANDRABOSE, S/O.APPUKUTTAN V.P.XI/659, NELLUVILA MELEDATH PUTHEN VEEDU,, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA,, TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

MS. M.N. MAYA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2971 OF 2004 2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C. No.583/1995

¶18

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara, for the offences punishable under Sections 324,326 and 447 which was registered as crime No.45/1995 of Kovalam police station.

¶19

By judgment dated 30.06.1998, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under

¶20

Section 326 IPC. Accused is further sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year under Section 324 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 447 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶21

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.06.1998, accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.289/1998 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvanthapuram, by judgment dated 23.07.2004, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred this revision.

¶22

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2971 OF 2004 3

¶23

Prosecution case in brief is that, on 14.07.1995, the accused, on account of his previous enmity towards PW1 for having questioned him for using her property as a way, criminally trespassed into her courtyard at 11.00 am and beat her on her left side of the head, left forearm causing fracture to both bones, joint of the right hand and on the left leg, using a chumadukol and thereby the accused had committed the aforesaid offences.

¶24

During the trial, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked and MO1 was identified on the side

¶25

of the prosecution. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1) (b)Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused is one of total denial. The accused was examined as DW1 and two other witnesses were also examined on his side as DW2 and DW3.

¶26

Having considered the materials on record, learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offences punish under Sections 324, 326 and 447 IPC and on conviction, imposed sentence as stated supra . In appeal, the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

¶27

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2971 OF 2004 4

¶28

Despite various chances, there has been no representation for the revision petitioner. It is well settled proposition of law that a criminal revision petition cannot be dismissed for default. Hence, this Court has called for the records in this case.

¶29

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

PW1 is the victim stated to have sustained the injuries in the occurrence. PW2 and PW3, two independent witnesses who supported the prosecution case in full. Immediately after the occurrence, the injured was taken to the Primary Health Centre at Vizhinjam and thereafter to the General Hospital at Thiruvananthapuram. Later, Pw1 was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for better management. PW4, the doctor who examined PW1 at the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. PW5 is the doctor who treated the injured at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvanathapuram issued Ext.P3 treatment certificate.

¶31

The occurrence in this case took place on 14.07.1995, at 11.00 am, on the western side of the courtyard

¶32

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2971 OF 2004 5

¶33

of PW1. On that day, when the accused went through the courtyard of PW1, she objected the user of her property as pathway. Suddenly, the accused became violent and beat on PW1's head, hand and ankle with MO1-chumadukol and inflicted severe injuries on her. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital. Ext.P1-FIS was recorded by PW6 on the same day itself. The whole investigation was conducted by PW9.

¶34

PW4 and PW5 , the doctors who treated the injured specifically stated before the court that PW1 had sustained fracture to her left forearm. PW1 identified MO1-chumadukol. MO1 was recovered by the Sub Inspector of Police when he prepared Ext.P5-scene mahazar in which PW8 is a signatory.

¶35

PW2 and PW3 are two independent witnesses who supported the prosecution case in full. PW2 and PW3 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. On analysing the entire evidence in detail, the trial court as well as the appellate court entered a finding that accused had criminally trespassed into the courtyard of PW1 and inflicted injuries at her, resulting in juries on her head and left hand below the elbow joint with fracture to her both bones of lower arm. No sufficient grounds

¶36

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2971 OF 2004 6

¶37

are brought out to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

In the result, Crl.R.P stands dismissed. Sent back the

¶39

records to the court below, forthwith.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR

JUDGE

ajt

Chandrabose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrabose 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

George Joseph,S/O Joseph,Parathalackal House,Muthalakodam P.O Vs State of Kerala

Babu K.V. Vs Rajesh & Sumani

Jimmy P.Antony Vs K.Santhosh Kumar

Baiju C Kuruvilla Vs State of Kerala

Abdurahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. Radha Mohanan Vs M/S. Parasyavedi Advertising Company