IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1722 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 846/2008 DATED 25-02-2010
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-II), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.252/2005 DATED 25-09-2008 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 BABUKUTTAN NAIR, S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR,
SUBHAVILASAM VEEDU,
PADJNJATTU MUKKU DESOM,,
MENAMKULAM VILLAGE (A1).
2 MOHANAN NAIR, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR
SUBHAVILASAM VEEDU,
PADJNJATTU MUKKU DESOM,,
MENAMKULAM VILLAGE (A1).
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.A.ANAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1722 OF 2010
2
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of January 2021 The revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in CC No.252 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Attingal and the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.846 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track II), Thiruvananthapuram. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Section 354 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 24.07.2004 at about 5.30 p.m, the accused 1 and 2 due to previous enmity towards PW2 in furtherance of their common intention rushed towards PW2 and kicked on her right thigh questioning her as to what was the difficulty for her for using loudspeaker in the nearby temple near the Geethanjali Hospital owned and conducted by PW2 at Padinjattumukku in Kadinamkulam Village and on seeing it, when PW1 intervened the 2 nd accused fisted on her back, caught hold of her blouse along with right forearm, tore off her blouse and then caught hold of her hair and thereby the accused 1 and 2 had outraged the modesty of PWs 1 and 2.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1722 OF 2010 3
3. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused 1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 354 r/w 34 of the IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track II), Thiruvananthapuram. By its judgment dated 25.02.2010, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
4. When the case came up for consideration, accused 1 and 2 filed Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2020 to compound the offence under Section 320 of the IPC. PW2, one of the victims, is no more. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners handed over a copy of the Death Certificate issued by the Department of Urban Affairs to prove that PW2 passed away on 13.07.2015. The only surviving victim is PW1. PW1 stated in the affidavit that Dr.Geetha, PW2 in this case after conviction of the accused told him with repentance that the case was instituted under the misunderstanding of facts. PW1 further stated in the affidavit that the dispute has been settled with him and sanction may be accorded to compound the Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1722 OF 2010 4 case.
5. PW1 further submitted that on 27.04.2004, on the date of occurrence he was working as Cook at the Geethanjali Ayurveda Hospital owned and managed by PW2. It is clearly stated in the affidavit that the disputes between the temple authorities and PWs 1 and 2 have been finally settled and no subsisting grievance is in existence at present. On going through the facts of the case, it is clear that the occurrence took place in connection with the user of a loudspeaker in the nearby temple near Geethanjali Hospital owned and conducted by PW2 at Padinjattumukku in Kadinamkulam Village. An element of moral turpitude is absolutely lacks in this case. Hence, this is a fit case for granting leave to compound the offence under Section 354 r/w 34 of the IPC.
6. Resultantly, Crl.M.A.No. 1 of 2020 stands allowed. The revision petitioners/accused stand acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. The Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE dlk/08.01.2021