Kerala High Court
Saji @ Sajikumar vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 162 OF 2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE MADE ON
19.01.2016 IN S.C. NO.115/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, KASARAGOD
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1, 3,& 7:
1 SAJI @ SAJIKUMAR
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN K., KONDODI KAYANI, KARINDALAM
VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
2 RAJESH @RAJESH KAYANI
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.K.V.KUNHIRAMAN, KORACHAN VEEDU, KAYANI,
KARINDALAM VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
3 UMESAN
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.UPENDRAN, KAYANI HOUSE, KARINDALAM VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT.
(THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE 3RD APPELLANT IN
CRL..A. NO.162/16 IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER
DATED 19.02.2016 IN CRL.M.A. NO.948/16)
BY ADVS.
SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU
SMT.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 671531
2 V C PADMANABHAN,
S/O CHANDUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, VAZHAKKODAN
VEEDU, KARINTHALAM VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT (
SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )
BY ADV SUKARNAN
2
Crl.A.No.162 of 2016
SEENA C...GP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.A.No.162 of 2016
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.A.No.162 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence of
the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 324
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are under
challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The 2nd respondent is the injured. The appellants
together with the 2nd respondent filed Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2024,
stating that the offence has been compounded between
them.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the
learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2 nd
respondent.
4. The date of commission of the offence is
12.11.2011. An offence under Section 324 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 was not compoundable on that date owing
to the amendment to Section 320 of the Code with effect
from 31.12.2009.
5. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another
[(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in
appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the
amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the
wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings.
6. Considering the nature of the offence involved in
this case, the settlement arrived at between the parties can
be reckoned with. The offence involved is not heinous or
serious one. It is not the one having the result of mental
depravity of the general public. Taking all such matters into
account, I am of the view that the proceedings can be
terminated by setting aside the judgment of conviction. This
court in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the
Code, can resort to such a course.
In the circumstances, reckoning the settlement
between the parties as reflected from Crl.M.A.No.2 of 2024,
the impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are
acquitted and set at liberty. The amount of fine, if deposited,
shall be refunded.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
Dxy/PV
