Partly allowed

Raju, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1209/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Petition challenged the conviction and sentence for an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. While accepting that the finding of guilt could not be interfered with due to limited revisional jurisdiction, the High Court modified the sentence downwards, considering the petitioner's voluntary surrender and good conduct in prison.

What did the court decide?

The sentence of rigorous imprisonment was reduced from five years to three years and six months, and the fine was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000.

Raju, Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 14TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1209 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 375/2016 OF PRINCIPAL SUB

¶7

COURT,NORTH PARAVUR

¶8

CRA 263/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT

¶9

- II, NORTH PARAVUR / I ADDITIONAL MACT, NORTH PARAVUR REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶10

RAJU, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, CHIRAMAL HOUSE, CHAMBANOOR, ANGAMALY BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

ADV SEENA C -PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.R.P.No.1209/2019

: 2 :

ORDER

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2023

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.1417/2015 of Angamaly Police Station, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that, on 29.07.2015 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused came to CW1 and uttered obscene words against CW1 and later, he voluntarily inflicted stab injuries by using a knife on CW1 and when he attempted to defend, he sustained injuries on both his palms and over his chin. It is alleged that the accused committed the said crime with the intention to murder CW1. The incident occurred on a public road, namely Punnarikadavu Road, Chembanoor, in Angamaly.

¶20

The trial of the said case was conducted before the Additional Assistant Sessions Court, North Paravur, as S.C. No.375/2016, and in support of the prosecution, CWs1 to 12 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P17 were marked, and MOs 1 to 5

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.1209/2019

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

were identified. After the trial, the petitioner was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

¶24

for five years and to pay a fine of `50,000/- as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and with a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A. No.263/2018 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction and sentence. This revision petition is submitted in such circumstances.

¶25

Heard Sri. Liffy P. Francis, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seena C., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was suspended by this Court as per order dated 24.12.2019, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for 50,000/- with two solvent sureties and also on deposit of an amount of 25,000/- towards fine. However, the petitioner could not comply with the condition,

¶27

Crl.R.P.No.1209/2019

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

as he did not have the amount to deposit in compliance with the condition imposed. In such circumstances, the petitioner is continuing under detention since the date of his surrender. It is also pointed out that he was now even granted parole.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that, as of now, the petitioner had already undergone imprisonment for three years 6 months and 23 days as on 27.10.2022 including remission.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining the relief in the revision petition in the reduction of sentence, taking into account the period of the sentence which the petitioner had already undergone.

¶32

I have gone through the records. Even though several contentions are seen raised by the petitioner in the revision petition, it is seen that all the said contentions were considered by both the courts and concurrently found that the petitioner is guilty of the offences. In such circumstances, considering the limited scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 379 and 401 of Cr.P.C., no interference can be made in the finding of guilty concurrently entered by both courts. Therefore, what remains is

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.1209/2019

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

the sentence imposed upon the petitioner. As is evident from the records, the petitioner had already undergone a substantial period of imprisonment. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is not involved in any other cases, which is confirmed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he surrendered before the Police voluntarily, and at no point did he attempt to escape the clutches of law.

¶36

In the report submitted by the Superintendent of Central Prison and Correctional Home, it is stated that, the conduct of the petitioner inside the prison, was good and considering the same, he was granted total remission of 6 months and 8 days upto the month of October, 2022. Thus considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, even though no interference is required with regard to the finding of guilt of the petitioner herein, some modification can be made with respect to the sentence imposed.

¶37

After considering all the relevant aspects and the materials placed before me, I am convinced that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner can be modified as rigorous

¶38

Crl.R.P.No.1209/2019

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

imprisonment for three years and six months for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of `25,000/- as compensation to PW1 under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. and with a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

¶41

The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.

¶42

Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶43

ncd

Raju, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju, 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

Faisal C.K Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Tt Vs State of Kerala

R. Mohanan Vs Station House Officer

Jayanthi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu Somasekharan Vs Deepuchandran

Binu, Vs Director General of Police