Partly allowed

Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 May 2024CRL.A/1791/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged conviction and sentence for voluntary causing hurt under Section 324 IPC. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from one year to six months, confirming compensation awarded to the victim.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; sentence reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment each; compensation of Rs. 7,500/- confirmed.

Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946

¶7

CRL.A NO. 1791 OF 2007

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2007 IN SC NO.486 OF 2006 OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) -I, THRISSUR

¶9

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

¶10

1 KARTHIKEYAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHAKKANDAN VEETTIL, NADUVIKKARA DESOM,, VATANAPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶11

2 PRASAD, S/O KARTHIKEYAN CHAKKANDAN VEETTIL, NADUVIKKARA DESOM,, VATANAPPALLY VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM., REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF POLICE, VALAPPAD.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI. VIPIN NARAYANAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON 20.05.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

¶20

--------------------------------------------------------Crl. Appeal No. 1791 of 2007

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2024.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 486 of 2006 of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them for the offence under Section 324 of IPC as per the judgment dated 13.09.2007.

¶25

The prosecution case is that on 14.05.2005, at 3.15 p.m., the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained PW7 by holding on her chest and the 1^st accused inflicted a cut injury on her head with a spade and the 2^nd accused beat her with an iron rod on her left upper arm and left thigh and the incident occurred in the property of one Ismail in Vadanappally Village.

¶26

Even though the trial court framed charge for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 354 and 307 r/w 34 IPC, after trial and after hearing both sides, the accused were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 341, 354 and 307 and they were found guilty

¶27

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 3 :

¶28

for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC and to pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/- each to PW7 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶29

In the trial court, PWs 1 to 14 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 and MOs 1 to 5 were marked from the side of the prosecution and from the side of the defence, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibit D1 was marked.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and the sentence imposed against the accused by the trial court is legally sustainable.

¶31

Heard Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court ought to have found that it was PW7 who entered into the property for grazing goats where the accused persons were conducting agricultural works and that when the 1^st accused raised objection, PW7 assaulted the 1^st accused with an iron rod in her hand and when the 2^nd accused intervened, PW7 pushed him down and at

¶33

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 4 :

¶34

that time, PW7, who was holding the ropes of the goats in her hand, fell down when the Goats ran away on seeing the incident and thus, she sustained the injuries and that the accused persons have specifically stated the said facts at the time of their questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and further, the evidence of DW1 and Exhibit D1 will show that the case put forward by the defence is a probable one and therefore, the accused are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt. It is also argued that the independent witness examined from the side of the prosecution has turned hostile and that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW7 regarding the occurrence is supported by the evidence of PW9 and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, doctors, and Exhibit P1, wound certificate, and there is no valid reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 7 and 9 regarding the occurrence and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶36

The de facto complainant is examined as PW7 and she deposed that the incident occurred in the property of Ismail on the southern side of her house on 14.05.2005 in between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. According to PW7, the accused persons are known to her and while

¶37

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 5 :

¶38

she was taking goats for grazing, her goats ran into the property of Ismail and when she followed the goats and entered the property of Ismail, the 1st accused caught on her breast and inflicted a cut injury on her head with the spade in his hand and she sustained a bleeding injury on her head and when she fell down, the 2^nd accused took possession of the iron rod from her hand and beat her on her left upper arm and left thigh. The evidence of PW7 shows that subsequently, her husband took her to the hospital at Vadanappally and thereafter, she also availed treatment from the Medical College Hospital.

¶39

PW7 identified both the accused before the court. The spade used by the 1^st accused is marked as MO1 and the iron rod used by the 2^nd accused is marked as MO2. The dress worn by PW7 at the time of occurrence is marked as MOs 3 and 4. PW7 also identified her signature in Exhibit P4, First Information Statement.

¶40

PW9 is the daughter of PW7 and she deposed that at the time of occurrence, she was standing on the road near the property of Ismail and when the goats of her mother ran into the property of Ismail, her mother also entered the said property and then the 1^st accused caught on the chest of her mother by saying that she was already warned not to take goats into the property and the 1^st accused inflicted a cut injury on the head of her mother with spade and when her mother fell down, the 2^nd accused took possession of the iron rod from the hands of her mother

¶41

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 6 :

¶42

and beat her on her left upper arm and left thigh. PW9 also identified both the accused persons and MOs 1 and 2 before the court.

¶43

In cross examination, PW7 denied the suggestion that she attacked the accused persons with the iron rod in her hand. PW7 denied the suggestion that she produced MOs 1 and 2 before the police only for the purpose of this case and that MOs 3 and 4 are not the dress worn by her at the time of occurrence. She also denied the suggestion that she sustained the injuries when her goats pulled the ropes which she was holding and when she fell down with the iron rod which she was holding. PW9 denied the suggestion that it is not possible to see the place of occurrence by standing on the road on the northern side of the property of Ismail. PW9 admitted that her mother was in possession of MO2, iron rod. But, she denied the suggestion that when her mother pulled the rope of the goats, she fell down with the iron rod and sustained injuries.

¶44

PW1 was the doctor who examined PW7 at Primary Health Centre, Vadanappally at 3.45 p.m. on 14.05.2005 and issued Exhibit P1 wound certificate. The evidence of PW1 and Exhibit P1 shows that PW7 sustained the following injuries:

¶45

Incised wound 3 inch long and 0.75 cm deep over the left side of head.

¶46

Contusion on left upper arm.

¶47

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007

¶48

: 7 :

¶49

Contusion on left thigh.

¶50

Tenderness on abdomen.

¶51

The alleged cause of injury in Exhibit P1 also tallies with the evidence of PW7 regarding the occurrence and the opinion of PW1 as to the alleged cause is that it could be as alleged. In cross examination, PW1 categorically stated that the edge of the blade portion of the spade can cause incised wound and she denied the suggestion that the edge of the blade portion of MO1 is not sharp so as to cause incised wound. The evidence of PW1 in cross examination further shows that it is not possible to cause injury No. 1 by a fall on the ground and coming into contact with a sharp edged object.

¶52

The evidence of PW2 doctor and Exhibit P2, discharge summary of PW7, shows that PW7 was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Thrissur on 16.05.2005 and was discharged on 19.05.2005.

¶53

PW13 was the Associate Professor of Surgery at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur who examined PW7 on 16.05.2005 and the case sheet relating to the treatment of PW7 is marked as Exhibit P11. In cross examination, PW13 deposed that the injury noted is not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

¶54

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007

¶55

: 8 :

¶56

PW5 was the Head Constable of Vadanappally Police Station, who reached Primary Health Centre, Vadanappally at 8 p.m., on 14.05.2005 and recorded Exhibit P4 statement of PW7. The evidence of PW6, ASI of Vadanappally Police Station shows that he registered Exhibit P5 FIR on 14.05.2005 on the basis of Exhibit P4 FIS. The evidence of PWs 5 and 6 and Exhibits P4 and P5 would show that there is a prompt FIR in this case. It is well settled that great importance is attached to a prompt FIR, as it reduces the chances of improvement in the prosecution story.

¶57

In this case, even though PW8 turned hostile to the prosecution, her evidence shows that she witnessed a push and pull between PW7 and the accused persons in the property of Ismail and she saw PW7 falling down. According to PW8, the accused were in possession of a spade and she also saw blood oozing from the head of PW7. However, she denied the suggestion that she has given statement to the police as per Exhibit P8 and she also cannot remember whether the occurrence was on 14.05.2005. Even though PW8 deposed that she saw MO1 spade in the hands of the accused, she is not sure which accused was holding MO1 at the time of occurrence.

¶58

In cross examination, PW8 stated that she saw the occurrence while standing on the road and she has not entered the property of

¶59

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 9 :

¶60

Ismail. According to PW8, she was following her goats through the road towards south. In cross examination, PW8 also denied the suggestion that the accused persons have not caused any hurt to PW7.

¶61

Dws 1 and 2 are the witnesses examined from the side of the defence in support of the contention that it was PW7 who assaulted the 1^st accused with the iron rod in her hand. According to DW1, he saw PW7 stabbing the 1^st accused with an iron rod on his hand at 3 p.m., on 14.05.2005 while they were in the property of Ismail. DW1 would say that when the 2^nd accused approached PW7, she pushed down the 2^nd accused and at that time, PW7 who was holding the ropes of 3-4 goats in her hand, fell down and sustained injuries on her forehead.

¶62

In cross examination, DW1 admitted that the 2^nd accused used to work in his house and that the accused persons are known to him for the last 2-3 years. He also admitted that he worked along with the accused persons and that he is working as a Mazon and the accused are working as carpenters. DW1 denied the suggestion that he is falsely deposing to help the accused persons who are his friends.

¶63

DW2 was the doctor who examined the 1^st accused at Government Hospital, Valappad on 14.05.2005 at 4.15 p.m. and issued Exhibit D1 wound certificate. The evidence of DW2 and Exhibit D1 shows that the 1^st accused sustained abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the dorsal

¶64

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 10 :

¶65

aspect of the left hand near the index finger. In cross examination, DW2 admitted that the injury noted in Exhibit D1 is possible if that part of the body came into contact with any hard and rough object. The evidence of DW2 and Exhibit D1 would show that the injury noted in Exhibit D1 is a minor injury and the same could be produced if that part of the body came into contact with any hard object. It is pertinent to note that DW1 has admitted in cross examination that he is a mazon and that the accused are carpenters and they used to work in the same place. It is also admitted by DW1 that the 2^nd accused used to work in his house and that he has acquaintance with the accused persons for the last two or three years.

¶66

In this case, even though PWs 7 and 9 were seriously cross examined, no material discrepancy is brought out and their evidence regarding the occurrence is also supported by the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 13, doctors and the treatment records. Even though, the defence has a case that the prosecution has not furnished any explanation for the injury sustained by the 1^st accused, it can be seen that the injury noted in Exhibit D1 is only a minor injury and the same could be produced if that part of the body came into contact with any hard object. Further, while cross examining PWs 7 and 9, the defence has not put any question to them regarding the injury noted in Exhibit D1.

¶67

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007

¶68

: 11 :

¶69

On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I find no reason to disagree with the finding in the impugned judgment that the evidence of PWs 7 and 9 regarding the occurrence is reliable and trustworthy and their evidence is supported by a prompt FIR and reliable medical evidence. I also find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court that the evidence of DW1, who is is a friend and co-worker of the accused, is not at all reliable and I find that in view of the evidence of DW2 that the injury noted in Exhibit D1 could be produced if that part of the body came into contact with any hard object and that the said injury is a minor abrasion of 1 x 1 cm. on the dorsal aspect of left hand, much importance cannot be given to the same and the same does not affect the core of the prosecution case and therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused persons committed the offence under Section 324 IPC and convicting them for the said offence.

¶70

Now the next question to be considered is regarding the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial court on the accused persons. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 IPC is harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case,

¶71

as it is in evidence that the accused persons were engaged in agricultural activities in the property managed by them and it was PW7

¶72

Crl. Appeal No. 1791/2007 : 12 :

¶73

who entered the said property with the goats for grazing and admittedly, there is no premeditation and the incident occurred as a result of a sudden quarrel. It is further pointed out that the 2^nd accused is the son of the 1^st accused and they are not having any criminal antecedents and that they are coming from a poor family.

¶74

Therefore, considering the mitigating circumstances, I deem it appropriate to modify the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC to be for a period of six months each, while confirming the compensation awarded by the trial court under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

¶75

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent alone. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶76

sd/- JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.

¶77

Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan 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

K.v.Baburaj, Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Shyju @ Pallan, Vs State of Kerala

A.v.John Vs George Joseph

P.T.Rajan Amboori Vs T.K.Viswambharan

M/S.Vaishnav Securities Vs Sasi T. and Another