IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 678 OF 2017
CP 91/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,
MATTANNUR
SC 63/2015 OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES
AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THALASSERY
APPELLANT:
JOHNY JOSEPH, S/O.PANOOS, C.NO.104/17, CENTRAL
PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME, KANNUR.
SMT.JAEONA JAMES, AMICUS CURIAE
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
(SHO, IRITTY POLICE STATION)
SMT.BINDU.O.V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.APPEAL NO.678 OF 2017 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
==================
Crl. Appeal No.678 of 2017
==================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case No.63 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offence against Women and Children, Thalassery. The case was charge sheeted against the appellant/accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 450, 341, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that on 22.08.2014 at 8.30 p.m., the accused armed with a chopper, and trespassed into the house of CW1 in his absence, had illegally restrained CW2, the wife of CW1 by hauling her up by her hair, and had attempted to murder her by chopping at her head and at her arms, repeatedly with the said chopper, resulting in grievous injuries to her. Thereby he has committed the offences alleged against him.
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16. Exts.P1 to P17 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. MOs 1 to 3 are the material objects. After going CRL.APPEAL NO.678 OF 2017 3 through the evidence and documents, the Trial Court found that the accused committed the offences under Sections 450, 341, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Sentence was imposed for each offences. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.
4. The appeal is filed through the jail authorities. Therefore, originally Adv.Sandhya R. Nair was appointed as State Brief. She informed that she got a job and she is not practicing. Therefore, Jaeona James is appointed as Amicus Curiae.
5. I have heard the Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. When this appeal came up for consideration, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant had already undergone the sentence and he was released from jail on 17.01.2020. Simply because the accused had undergone the sentence, a criminal appeal cannot be disposed of without going to the merit of the case. Therefore, this Court has to consider the appeal on merit.
7. PW1 is the husband of PW2, who is the injured in this case. PW3 is an independent eye-witness. PW4 is the Scientific Assistant. PW5 is also an independent witness and he is a neighbour. PW6 is CRL.APPEAL NO.678 OF 2017 4 the seizure mahazar witness. PW7 is the cousin brother of PW1, who took PW2 to hospital. PW8 is the Police Officer and PW9 is the Father of a Church. The other witnesses are all official witnesses.
8. The trial court framed the following points for consideration:
"(1) Whether the accused had trespassed into the house of PW1 and PW2 in an attempt to murder PW2?
(2) Whether the accused had illegally restrained PW2? (3) Whether the accused had attempted to murder PW2? (4) Whether the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW2 by chopping at her with MO1 chopper? (5) What offence, if any, the accused has committed? (6) Sentence or order?"
9. Point Nos.1 to 4 were considered together by the Trial Court and found that the accused had attacked PW2 with MO1, with which she had sustained injuries mentioned in Ext.P9. Point No.5 is also found in favour of the prosecution and the Lower Court found that the accused committed the offences under Sections 450, 341, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court considered the oral evidence and documentary evidence. Based on these evidences, the trial court convicted the accused for the above said CRL.APPEAL NO.678 OF 2017 5 offences. I see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. The sentence imposed by the trial court is also reasonable. In such circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. Moreover, the appellant was already released after serving the sentence. In such circumstances, nothing survives in this case.
Therefore, the Criminal Appeal fails. Dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DSV/18.06.2022