Haneefa vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 11645 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
 THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA,
                                 1945
                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 4367 OF 2006
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 721/2000 OF JUDICIAL
             MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR
    CRA 585/2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC),
                             THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONERS:

            HANEEFA
            ALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANTHEERUMPALA,, PULLUT.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
            SRI.PRASUN.S



RESPONDENT:

            STATE OF KERALA
            THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM.

            BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI SANAL P.RAJ- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR




     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION     ON   16.11.2023,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4367 OF 2006       2


                           G. GIRISH J.
               ========================
                    Crl.R.P. No. 4367 of 2006
            -----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 16thday of November, 2023

                               ORDER

The concurrent findings of the trial Court as

well as the appellate Court, finding the petitioner/

accused guilty of the offence under Section 324 of

IPC, is under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on

11.03.2000 at about 9.00 Am the accused inflicted

voluntary hurt upon PW2 by stabbing with a knife

inside a bar in a hotel at Kodungallur causing

injuries to his chest portion. On the basis of the

first information statement given by PW1, the Sub

Inspector of Police Kodungallur registered the FIR

and proceeded against the accused. After the

completion of the investigation, the final report

had been laid before the learned Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kodungallur in respect of the

offence under Section 324 of IPC. The learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and

issued summons to petitioner/accused. Since the

petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge, trial

proceeded against him, in which seven witnesses

were examined from the part of the prosecution as

PW1 to PW7, and seven documents marked as

Exts. P1 to P7. The weapon of offence was marked

as MO1. Upon the closure of prosecution evidence

the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 of

Cr.PC, regarding the incriminating circumstances

brought out in evidence. The petitioner denied the

accusations put to him by way of questions, and

pleaded innocence. One defence witness was

examined as DW1, and a document marked as Ext.

D1.

3. After evaluating the evidence on record

and hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate

found the petitioner guilty of the offence under

Section 324 IPC and convicted him thereunder. He

was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one

year and fine Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only)

with a default clause of simple imprisonment for

three months. Though the petitioner challenged

the above conviction and sentence before the

Sessions Court concerned, the learned 3 rd

Additional Session Judge, Thrissur who considered

the appeal, declined to interfere, and confirmed

the conviction and sentence of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the above verdict of the appellate

Court, the petitioner is here with this revision

petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The evidence on record would reveal that

the trial Court has relied on the evidence of PW1

and PW2 in respect of the commission of the

offence, and that of PW3 regarding the conduct of

the accused immediately after the commission of

the offence. The injuries sustained by the victim,

as borne out from the medical evidence, are also

seen rightly appreciated by the trial Court as well

as the appellate Court. There is no apparent error,

gross illegality or impropriety in the findings of the

trial Court, which have been upheld by the

appellate Court. It is well settled that the

revisional Court is not expected to re-appreciate

the evidence as in the case of appeals. The scope

of interference in revision is limited to instances

where there is gross illegality or impropriety on

the part of the Courts below while rendering the

verdicts.

6. Therefore, I am of the view that the

concurrent findings of the Courts below, convicting

the petitioner/accused under Section 324 of IPC,

are not liable to be interfered with. However,

taking into account of the submission of the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner that,

after the elapse of more than 23 years, the revision

petitioner is now aged 63 years and suffering from

various ailments due to old age, I feel that

incarceration of revision petitioner in prison has to

be avoided. But, the revision petitioner has to be

mulcted with the liability to pay exemplary

compensation to the victim of the offence towards

mitigating the sufferings undergone by him.

7. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, and the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I feel

that, the sentence of simple imprisonment for one

year and fine Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand

only) imposed by the trial Court and upheld by the

appellate Court, is liable to be modified as

imprisonment till the rising of Court and fine

Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only). Out of

the fine amount, if realized, an amount of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) shall be paid

as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.PC to

the victim(PW2) or his legal heirs.

In the result, while confirming the conviction

of the petitioner for the commission of offence

under Section 324 of IPC, the sentence is modified

to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine Rs.

15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only). Out of the

fine amount, if realized, an amount of Rs.10,000/-

(Rupees ten thousand only) shall be paid as

compensation to PW2 or his legal heirs, under

Section 357(1)(b) Cr.PC. In default of payment of

fine as directed above, the petitioner will undergo

simple imprisonment for a term of six months. The

petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on or

before 30.01.2024 to undergo the sentence and

make payment of fine as directed above. Transmit

a copy of this order along with the case records to

the trial Court for enforcement of sentence.

Sd/-

G.GIRISH JUDGE

Asw