Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE20H DAY OF NOVEMBER201329TH KARTHIKA, 1935 CRL.A.No. 105 of 2008 ( ) -------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN SC.NO. 546/2004 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, TRIVANDRUM DATED0301-2008) CP.NO. 80/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I,NEYYATINKARA -------------------------------------------- APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------ SUKUMARAN,S/O.APPUKUTTAN, PRIYANKA BHAVAN, OOTTUPURA, MALAYINKIL, MALAYINKIL VILLAGE. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU,SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED *ADDL.R2: ROSAMMA,D/O.HARRIS NADAR, PULINKADAVILA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KATTAPANA, ARALUMMOODU, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL2D RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER
DATED2011/2013 IN CRL.M.A.NO.7890/2013. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN R2 BY ADV. SRI. B.S.SWATHIKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2011-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A. No. 105 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 427, 506(ii) and 436 of IPC. After trial, he was found guilty of the offences under Sections 323, 341, 427, 506(ii) and 436 of IPC and was acquitted for the offence under Section 452 of IPC. For the offences for which he was found guilty, was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC with a default clause of one year simple imprisonment. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) and six months each for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 427 of IPC and one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently and set off Crl.A. No. 105 of 2008 -2- as per law was allowed. It is also directed that if the fine amount was realized, the same shall be paid to PW2 as compensation.
2. The incident which gave rise to the crime occurred on 03.06.2002 at about 3.30 p.m. The allegation seems to be that the accused who is in Police service has some sort of relationship with PW2 and PW2 claims that the accused is her husband. Whatever that be, on the date of incident, the accused is alleged to have assaulted the victim and she ran outside to escape. He chopped off the branches of trees within the property and destroyed the articles in the house. On the basis of the complaint laid by the victim, a crime was registered as per Ext.P2(a), FIR. After completing investigation, charge was laid before the court.
3. The court before which the final report was laid, took cognizance of the offences and finding that the offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Crl.A. No. 105 of 2008 -3- The said court made over the case to Additional District and Sessions Court, (Fast Track-I), Thiruvananthapuram for trial and disposal.
4. The latter court, on receipt of records framed charges for the offences made mention of to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore had examined PWs 1 to 10 and had Exts. P1 to P13 marked. MOs 1 to 5 were got identified and marked.
5. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and also filed a statement pointing out that he had financial transaction with one Raveendran who is none other than the brother of the defacto complainant. When the said person was unable to repay the amount, at his instance, the property comprised in survey No. 147 of Athiyanoor Village which stood in the name of PW2 was Crl.A. No. 105 of 2008 -4- assigned to the accused. Without paying the amount due to the accused, they insisted the accused to execute release deed.
6. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence.
7. Based mainly on the evidence of PW2, the victim, the accused was found guilty and conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.
8. It is unnecessary to go into the facts and details of the case for the simple reason that the appellant has produced Annexures A and B along with Crl.M.A.No. 8047 of 2013 wherein it is seen that the parties have gone for mediation and settled all their issues and differences and the defacto complainant/victim had no further grievance subsists to be redressed. It is also seen that the defacto complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaint and also submitted that accused may be acquitted. Annexure A is an Crl.A. No. 105 of 2008 -5- affidavit sworn to by the defacto complainant pointing out that she has no further grievance in the matter and the appeal may be allowed.
9. In the light of the stand taken by the defacto complainant and in the light of the mediation talk and in order to ensure that the peaceful atmosphere subsist and no ill feeling is continuing between the parties, it is felt that necessary orders need be passed. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 and while retaining the convictions for various offences, the sentences awarded for the offences are set aside and instead the sentences shall stand confined to the period of detention already undergone by him. Sentences for all offences shall run concurrently. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds