Kerala High Court
Varghese @ Kunjumon vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1876/2006,
2083/2006, 2127/2006]
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1876 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 138/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT,THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 508/2003 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,
KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 JOJI, S/O TOMAS,
AGED 25, THEVARAKKARA VEEDU, CHETTUKUZHI KARA,
KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
2 JAYAN, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 37,
CHERUKARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, APPAPPIKADA BHAGAM,
CHETTUKUZHI KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
3 REJI @ KUNJU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
AGED 38, NADUCHIRA VEEDU, APPAPPIKADA BHAGAM,
CHETTUKUZHI KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANGEETHARAJ N.B
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2083/2006, 2127/2006, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1876/2006,
2083/2006, 2127/2006]
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2083 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2006 IN CRA 138/2005 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2005 IN SC 508/2003 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS 1 & 6/ACCUSED 1 & 6:
1 VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON,
S/O. GEORGE, KALAYAIL VEEDU, APPAPPIKADA BHAGAM,
CHETTUKUZHI KARA,
KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
2 JACOB @ MANOJ, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O. GEORGE, KALAYAIL VEEDU, CHELLARKOVIL 1ST MILE,
ANAKKARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.TOMY
SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.B
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1876/2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1876/2006,
2083/2006, 2127/2006]
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2127 OF 2006
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2006 IN CRA 138/2005 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 508/2003 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT,KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ALEXANDER @ LALICHAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O.DEVASIA THACHEDATHU VEEDU, APPAPPIKADA, BHAGOM,
CHETTUKUZHI KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 VARGHESE KUNJUMON, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.GEORGE, KALAYIL VEEDU, APPAPPIKKADA BHAGOM,
CHETTUKUZHI KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
3 JOJI, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS,
THEVARAKKARA VEDU, APPAPPIKKADA BHAGOM, CHETTUKUZHI KARA,
KARUINAPURAM VILLAGE.
4 JAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY,
CHERUKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, APPAPPIKADA BHAGOM, CHJETTIKUZHI
KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
5 REJI @ KUNJU, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O VELAYUDHAN, NADUCHIRA VEEDU, APPAPPIKADA BHAGOM,
CHETTUKUZHI KARA, KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE.
6 JACOB @ MANOJ, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.GEORGE, KALAYIL VEEDU, CHELLAN KOVIL, I MILE,
ANAKKARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. C.M.TOMY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1876/2006 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1876/2006,
2083/2006, 2127/2006]
4
ORDER
Crl.R.P.1876 of 2006 is by accused No.3 to 5,
Crl.R.P.2083 of 2006 is by accused No.1 and 6, and
Crl.R.P.No.2127 of 2006 is by accused No.2, against
the same judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence passed by the trial court in a case charge
sheeted by the police for the offence under Section
392 r/w Section 34 IPC and the confirmation of
sentence and conviction by the first appellate court.
The sentence awarded for the offence as against
accused Nos.3 and 4 does not include any order of
sentence of fine. Hence, by the death of accused
Nos.3 and 4, the offence stood abated. The same is
recorded.
2. The remaining accused are accused Nos.1, 2, 5
and 6. There are concurrent findings by both the
courts below regarding the conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 392 IPC, though they were
charge sheeted for the offence punishable under
Section 395 IPC. But being a minor offence, without
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1876/2006,
2083/2006, 2127/2006]
a specific charge, it is permissible to lay
conviction for the minor offence. As such, there is
no legal impediment in awarding conviction and
sentence for the minor offence under Section 392 IPC
with the aid of Section 34 IPC. It is based on the
oral testimony given by the witnesses examined by the
prosecution, which consists of PW1 to PW19 and the
documentary evidence- Exts. P1 to P16. The defence
witness is DW1, and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked and
MO1 to MO6 were identified. The concurrent findings
rendered by both the courts below for the said
offence under Section 392 IPC is resting on the oral
evidence tendered by the prosecution. Nothing was
brought to the notice of this court in order to have
an interference or to show any absurdity or
perversity in the findings rendered by both the
courts below. Hence, the findings of conviction for
the offence under Section 392 r/w 34 IPC as against
accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 deserves no interference.
3. On coming into the sentence, it does not
reflect a proper balance between the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances. The learned counsel for
[Crl.Rev.Pet Nos.1876/2006,
2083/2006, 2127/2006]
the respective revision petitioner fairly submitted
that the entire amount seized from the respective
custody of the accused persons was given back to the
de facto complainant and it is a first time offence.
Taking into account all these and the attending
circumstances, the learned counsel for the
petitioners pressed for leniency in the matter and
suggested that they are prepared to pay compensation
in terms of money and suggested an amount of
Rs.25,000/- each. Hence, the sentence will stand
modified to the extent of pre-trial detention already
undergone and a fine amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
All these Criminal Revision Petitions will stand
allowed in part accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
