CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1145 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A NO. 192/2003 OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 253/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, PERINTHALMANNA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
MUHAMMED
S/O.KUNHAJAVI, MANNENGARA VEED, EDAPPETTA AMSOM,
VELLIANCHERY DESOM.
BY ADV SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
SRI SANAL P RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 2
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment in Crl.A No.192/2003 dated 28.1.2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Manjeri, (for short 'the appellate court'), confirming the judgment in C.C.No.253/2001 dated 30.4.2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perinthalmanna (for short 'the trial court').
2. The revision petitioner is the accused. He faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 324 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 26.7.2001 at 10.00 am the revision petitioner committed criminal trespass by entering into the house of the de facto complainant at Cheriparamb, Edappatta amsom, Velliyancheri Desom with an intention to voluntarily cause hurt to her and assaulted her with his hands and a knife and thereby committed the the offence.
4. The trial court, after trial found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 324 of CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 3 IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 447 of IPC, simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 324 of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision.
5. I have heard Sri.C.M.Kammappu, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not challenging the finding of conviction. The learned counsel submitted that the substantive sentence may be reduced till the rising of the court and adequate compensation may be awarded to PW1/injured.
7. I went through the evidence. The evidence adduced by CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 4 the prosecution clearly establish the prosecution case. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt that the revision petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 324 of IPC. It is settled that re appreciation of the evidence is not permissible under the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I find no illegality or impropriety in the findings of the courts below that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 324 of IPC.
8. The next question is regarding the sentence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was 43 year old and he was not involved in any other criminal case. The counsel further submitted that at present he is aged 64 years and suffering from various ailments. The counsel also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the alleged act was a premeditated one. The counsel pleaded that in these circumstance, the substantive sentence may be confined to till rising of the court and compensation be awarded to the victim. I CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 5 find some force in the said argument.
9. Section 357 of Cr.P.C is an important provision empowering the court to award compensation to the victims of the crime while passing the judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay reasonable amount by way of compensation to the victim who suffered by the action of the accused. It is a measure of responding appropriately to the crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. The Apex court in Hari Kishan & Another v. Sukhbir Singh & Others (AIR 1988 SC 2127) highlighted the necessity of invoking the power u/s 357 of Cr.P.C by the court. The Apex Court has recommended that the power u/s 357 of Cr.P.C is to be exercised liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in the better way.
10. The revision petitioner is at present aged 64 years. He is a Coolie. The case is of the year 2005. He has been facing ordeal of trial for the last 21 years. Admittedly, he has no criminal antecedents. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that adequate compensation has to be granted to PW1 under Section 357 CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 6 of Cr.P.C.
11. The Apex Court in Hari Kishan's case (supra) has observed that the quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of the accused to pay and the compensation must be reasonable. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that compensation of Rs.25,000/- would be just and reasonable.
12. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that imposition of sentence of simple imprisonment till rising of the court with a direction to pay compensation as indicated above under Section 357 of Cr.P.C would definitely meet interest of justice.
In the result, this Crl.Revision Petition is disposed of as follows:
i) The conviction passed by the courts below is hereby confirmed.
ii) The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court under Section 447 of IPC.
iii) The accused is also sentenced to undergo CRL.R.P NO.1145/2005 7 simple imprisonment till rising of the court under Section 323 of IPC.
iv) The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 324 of IPC.
v) The substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
vi) The revision petitioner shall surrender before the trial court to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court and deposit the compensation awarded within a period of one month from today, after giving prior notice to the Prosecutor.
Vii) On deposit of compensation, the trial court shall issue notice to PW1 and release the amount to her.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ab