Partly allowed

Sasikumar v. Johnson

Kerala HC10 Aug 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/468/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition in part, confirming the conviction for offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC but modifying the sentences to reduced fines and terms of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed in part; sentence modified to fine of Rs. 1000/- for Section 323 and Rs. 6000/- for Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, with compensation of Rs. 16,000/- to PW1.

Sasikumar Vs Johnson — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 468 OF 2016

¶6

CRA 723/2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

CC 183/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEYYATTINKARA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 SASIKUMAR

¶10

AGED 53 YEARS

¶11

S/O CHELLAYYAN, KUNNUMALA VADAKKE CHARIVU VEEDU, KANJAMPAZHANJI DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 SANALMONY @ SANALKUMAR S/O MONIYAN, AAYIRAMTHAI VEEDU, KANJAMPAZHANI VEEDU, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3 RAHULAN @ RAHUL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O RAHUL, AAYIRAMTHAI VEEDU, KANJAMPAZHANI VEEDU, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.SANTHARAM.P

¶15

SMT.REKHA ARAVIND

¶16

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶17

1 JOHNSON

¶18

S/O DAVEED, THUVARAMTHOTTAM, KADAYARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KANJAPAZHANJI, THIRUPURAM – 695 001.

¶19

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

¶20

R1 BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶21

SRI. M P PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.R.P. No. 468/2016

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶26

¶27

Crl.R.P. No. 468 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2023.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This revision arises out of the judgment dated 23.09.2009 in C.C. No. 183 of 2001 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara and the judgment dated 09.06.2015 in Crl. Appeal No. 723 of 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram. The revision petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3.

¶31

The trial court tried the accused, who alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 IPC. The trial court sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC Further, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 IPC, and in default to

¶32

pay the fine, the accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Sentences were directed to run

¶33

Crl.R.P. No. 468/2016 : 3 :

¶34

concurrently. It was also directed that out of payment of fine, if realized, Rs.2000/- each shall be given to PW1 as compensation.

¶35

When the appellant challenged the conviction and the sentence before the appellate court, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII, as per judgment dated 09.06.2015, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction as well as sentence.

¶36

While impeaching the veracity of concurrent verdicts, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners attempted to establish contradictions in the version of the occurrence witness as well as the evidence given by the doctor. But, the learned counsel miserably failed in his endeavour, though he submitted that Exhibit P5 wound certificate was not tendered in evidence by examining its author, since he was no more. It appears that the trial court as well as the appellate court correctly entered into conviction relying upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, supported by the evidence of PW8 and Exhibit P5 wound certificate. It is true that Exhibit P5 wound certificate was tendered in evidence through PW8, since the author of Exhibit P5 was no more at the time of evidence. PW8 examined is another doctor who is familiar to the handwriting and signature of the author of Exhibit P5. In fact, such a procedure is permitted under law. The offences under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC provide punishment for causing hurt. The term

¶37

Crl.R.P. No. 468/2016 : 4 :

¶38

‘hurt’ is defined under Section 319 of IPC. The said provision reads thus:

¶39

“319. Hurt.—Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

¶40

The evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of PWs 2 and

¶41

3 categorically established the ingredients provided for the offence under Section 319 of IPC, using a weapon and without using a weapon. Therefore, the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC is well established in this case. In such a case, the conviction entered into by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court do not require any interference, by exercising the power of revision.

¶42

As far as sentence is concerned, the same can be modified in the interest of justice. The sentence provided for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC is imprisonment or fine or both. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed in part. The conviction entered by the trial court shall stand confirmed and the sentence stands modified as under:

¶43

1. The revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and in default to pay fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10

¶44

Crl.R.P. No. 468/2016 : 5 :

¶45

days.

¶46

1. The revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and in default to pay the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four weeks.

¶47

1. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand only) shall be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining shall go to the State exchequer being the cost of the prosecution.

¶48

1. The revision petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to surrender before the trial court on 04.09.2023 to pay the fine imposed by the trial court as part of sentence.

¶49

1. On default to pay the fine, the trial court is directed to execute the modified sentence without fail.

¶50

1. Since the first respondent (PW1) appears before this Court, PW1 also is directed to appear before court at 11 a.m., on 04.09.2023. If the revision petitioners pay the fine, the trial court is directed to pay Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) to PW1 on the date of payment itself.

¶51

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the trial court for information and compliance.

¶52

sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE

¶53

Sasikumar v. Johnson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikumar v. Johnson

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

Saneer Vs State of Kerala

P.N.M Hospital Vs State of Kerala

Ajayan @ Sumesh @ Motta Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs Jiji

Ramesh R C @Unni Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathanpillai.v.N Vs Sunil Kumar.C.D