Binu, S/O. Soman vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 13327 Ker

Kerala High Court

Binu, S/O. Soman vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
     THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                          CRL.A NO. 2 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2006 IN SC NO.426 OF 2005 OF
ADDITIONAL    SESSIONS   COURT,   SPECIAL   COURT   (NDPS   ACT   CASES),
THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT IN CP NO.82 OF 2004 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT)
ADIMALY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED IN SC 426/05:

             BINU, S/o SOMAN,
             EDATTU VEEDU, PRIYADARSINI COLONY,
             ADIMALY KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE.

             BY ADVS. SMT.SHIJA SHERIDAN
                      SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY

                         SMT.   RAIHANATH T.H. -    AMICUS CURIAE


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SI OF POLICE,
             ADIMALY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
             PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SANGEETHARAJ N R




THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 23.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.Appeal No.2 of 2007                     2




                                    JUDGMENT

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned

counsel for the appellant remained absent. Hence, this

court was forced to take the assistance of an Amicus

Curiae. As such, Adv. Raihanath T.H. was appointed as

the Amicus Curiae.

2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the

Amicus Curiae.

This criminal appeal is against the judgment of

conviction for the offence punishable under Section 308

IPC. The wound certificate produced reveals the nature

of injuries alleged to have been sustained and the

nature of weapon used for the commission of offence.

Nothing was brought to the notice of this court

pertaining to any reason to interfere with the judgment

of conviction rendered by the trial court. On the other

hand, as stated earlier, the counsel for appellant

remained absent, even after the appointment of an

Amicus Curiae by this court. It is fairly conceded by

the Amicus Curiae that the conviction is resting on the

oral evidence tendered by the prosecution and also the

medical evidence tendered which gives sufficient

corroboration to the oral testimony of the victim,

besides the FIR which was registered without any

inordinate delay. As such, the conviction rendered by

the trial court deserves no interference. The sentence

awarded also reflects a proper balance between the

mitigating and aggravating circumstance. Hence, the

Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-