Ratheesh vs State

Ratheesh vs STATE

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 30, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1346806

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1346806
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Nov 30, 2023
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/1142/2007

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ratheesh

Respondent

STATE

Excerpt

.....the finding of guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 451, 323, and 427 ipc the accused came up in revision.2. initially, the accused was found guilty for the offence under sections 452, 323, 324 & 427 ipc by the trial court. but in appeal, it was modified and found guilty for the offence under sections 451, 323 & 427 ipc and he was acquitted for the offence under sections 452 and 324 ipc. the offence under section 452 was converted into section 451 ipc being a minor offence and convicted thereunder. the concurrent findings rendered by both courts below appears to be proper in all respects, and nothing was brought to the notice of this court in order to interfere with the abovesaid findings, except thequestion that no charge was raised for the offence under section 451 ipc. but, 451 ipc is a minor offence to section 452 ipc. as such, it is permissible. hence, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction rendered by both the courts below for the abovesaid offences punishable under sections 323, 427, and conversion of the offence into 451 ipc and the conviction thereunder. but the sentence awarded seems to be exorbitant. it does not reflect aproper balance, and as such, it will stand modified and reduced to one week simple imprisonment for the offence under section 451 imprisonment for two months, and one week simple imprisonment for the offence under section 323 imprisonment for two months and a fine amount of rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) for theoffence punishable under section 427 ipc. the substantive sentence shall run concurrently. the petitioner is also entitled to set off of the period of pre-trial detention, if any. the criminal revision petition will stand allowed in part accordingly. sd/- p.somarajan judge spv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 565/2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC 2461/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOCHI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY): RATHEESH, S/O. SASI, AGED 26, KATHITHARA HOUSE, KADEKURISHINKAL, NAYARAMBALAM P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.ROY THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.SANGEETHARAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 30.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Against the finding of guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 451, 323, and 427 IPC the accused came up in revision.

2. Initially, the accused was found guilty for the offence under Sections 452, 323, 324 & 427 IPC by the trial court. But in appeal, it was modified and found guilty for the offence under Sections 451, 323 & 427 IPC and he was acquitted for the offence under Sections 452 and 324 IPC. The offence under Section 452 was converted into Section 451 IPC being a minor offence and convicted thereunder. The concurrent findings rendered by both courts below appears to be proper in all respects, and nothing was brought to the notice of this Court in order to interfere with the abovesaid findings, except the

question that no charge was raised for the offence under Section 451 IPC. But, 451 IPC is a minor offence to Section 452 IPC. As such, it is permissible. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the conviction rendered by both the courts below for the abovesaid offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, and conversion of the offence into 451 IPC and the conviction thereunder. But the sentence awarded seems to be exorbitant. It does not reflect a

proper balance, and as such, it will stand modified and reduced to one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 imprisonment for two months, and one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 imprisonment for two months and a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the

offence punishable under Section 427 IPC. The substantive sentence shall run concurrently. The petitioner is also entitled to set off of the period of pre-trial detention, if any. The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed in part accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Ratheesh vs STATE Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan