Muhammed vs State Of Kerala,Rep.By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6723 Ker

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

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

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

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

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

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