Jose vs State Of Kerala Rep.By Public ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10109 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                   Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4170 OF 2006

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 299/2004 DATED 31-08-2006 OF
           ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 49/2004 DATED 30-11-2004 OF
     JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, SULTHAN BATHERY


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

      1      JOSE, S/O AUGUSTY,
             CHOODANTHANATH HOUSE, MADEL P.O.,
             MULLAMKOLLY, PULPALLY.

      2      JAMES, S/O. CHERIAN,
             THEKKUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, MADEL P.O.,
             MULLAMKOLLY, PULPALLY.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
             SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
             SRI.D.FEROZE
             SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
             SRI.S.RAJEEV
             SRI.V.VINAY

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      2      SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
             PULPALLY.


             PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4170 OF 2006             2


                                  ORDER

The revision is against the concurrent finding of

guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 and conviction under

Sections 341 and 326 IPC by the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court. The second appellant passed

away during the pendency of the appeal. Nobody came up

to implead themselves. The accused No.1 is suffering

from chronic cancer to his lungs and is undergoing

treatment. He is aged 59. Treatment records produced

show that he is suffering from lung cancer. Nothing

was brought to the notice of this court so as to have

an interference with the concurrent finding of guilt of

accused No.1 for the offence under section 341 and 326

IPC, but the sentence is modified taking into account

of the serious ailment - lung cancer, to the extent of

the period of detention already undergone by the

petitioner for the said offences.

Crl.R.P. is allowed in part accordingly

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp