Neelandan, S/o Kannan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. D. Rajan
Judgment Date: 2015-05-22
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. partly allowed. The conviction under Section 324 IPC is maintained; however, the sentence is reduced to three months of imprisonment. The court also orders a compensation of ₹25,000 under Section 357 Cr.P.C., with imprisonment for one month in default of payment of compensation. If compensation is realized, it shall be disbursed to PW1.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Neelandan, S/o Kannan, Cherur House, Karippur, Kolathur, Malappuram District

Respondents

State of Kerala rep by Sub Inspector of Police Kondotty through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Samsudin

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, Sri Githesh.R

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Revision Petition preferred by Neelandan challenging a conviction under Section 324 IPC, arising from a complaint of hurt inflicted with a knife at Pushpak Bar Restaurant, Kolathur, on 15.10.1999 around 6.30 p.m. The trial court, and subsequently the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III (Ad hoc), Manjeri, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him for the offence. The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses (PWs 1–6) and medical evidence (PW7) showing a 5 x 2 cm incised wound on PW1’s left cheek caused by MO1 knife; the wound certificate (Ext.P2) corroborated this. The defence claimed the injury resulted from a fall, which the courts rejected. The High Court judge, after reviewing the evidence, held that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt and confirmed the concurrent conviction. However, considering the nature of the offence, the accused’s absence of prior antecedents reported in the case, and PW1’s alcohol consumption, the court invoked leniency guided by Modi Ram and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1972 SC 2438) and awarded some relief. The revision petition was partly allowed: three months imprisonment under Section 324 IPC; compensation of ₹25,000 under Cr.P.C. Section 357, with default imprisonment of one month if compensation is not paid; the compensation, if realized, to be disbursed to PW1.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 324 IPCSection 313 Cr.P.C.Section 357 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Leniency in sentencing (Modi Ram and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2438)
Compensation to the victim under Cr.P.C. 357 (as per Suresh and another v. State of Haryana, 2015) 2 SCC (Crl) 45

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the injury was only a minor wound and the sentence imposed by the trial Court is too harsh; he urges this Court to exercise its revisional power to reduce the sentence and consider leniency in light of the minor nature of the injury and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The defense case at trial that the injury resulted from a fall was rejected; the counsel seeks a more lenient sentence while maintaining the conviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposing the revision contends that the conviction and sentence are proper and should be maintained. He argues that the injuries were caused with a weapon and that the trial court’s findings are well-supported by medical and ocular evidence; the prosecution’s case is robust and does not warrant a reversal of conviction, though some leniency in sentencing may be permissible.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Modi Ram and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh	AIR 1972 SC 2438	Positive	Cited to justify leniency in sentencing given the circumstances and lack of prior antecedents.
Suresh and another v. State of Haryana	(2015) 2 SCC (Crl) 45	Positive	Cited to support entitlement to compensation to the victim under Cr.P.C. 357.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2015/1ST JYAISHTA, 1937** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4291 of 2006 ( )** **---------------------------------** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 661/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT NO.III,(ADHOC), MANJERI DATED 19-09-2006 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 147/2000 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM DATED 26-11-2004. REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:** **-------------------------------------------NEELANDAN, S/O.KANNAN, CHERUR HOUSE KARIPPUR, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.** **R, BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. GITHESH.R** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **acd** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 4291 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2015 ## **ORDER** This revision petition is preferred against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.661/2004 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III (Adhoc), Manjeri for offence punishable under S.324 IPC. The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.147/2000 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, which was charge sheeted for offence punishable u/s.324 IPC by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kondotty, in which he was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 2. The narration of incident for the indictment was that on 15.10.99 at 6.30 p.m., the revision petitioner Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by inflicting cut injury on the cheek with a knife at the courtyard of Pushpak Bar Restaurant, Kolathur. As a result PW1 sustained serious injuries and removed him to hospital. On the basis of information, Kondotty Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, laid charge before Court. 3. To prove that story, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 as documentary evidence and admitted Mo1 as material object. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The the trial Court after hearing both sides, convicted the accused. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the injury sustained was only a minor wound, but the sentence imposed by the trial Court Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 3 was too harsh. Therefore, interference of this Court is necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the above argument. 5. The incident had occurred on 15.10.99 at about 6.30, while PW1 was going to the Pushpak bar hotel in order to collect the price of milk. While proceeding to the hotel, PW1 saw the revision petitioner quarrelling with another man and when he enquired about the reason for quarrel, the revision petitioner stabbed him with MO1 knife. Immediately, he was removed to Medical College Hospital. Subsequently, PW1 gave Ext.P1 statement to the Police and he identified MO1 weapon. Independent witnesses PWs 2 to 6 supported the story stated by PW1. The defence put forward by the accused in the trial Court was that the injury was sustained due to a fall on the ground, which was rejected by that Court. Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 4 6. The doctor, who examined PW1 opined that the injury could be caused due to MO1 knife. Medical Officer, who treated PW1 was examined as PW7. I have perused Ext.P2 wound certificate, in which PW7 noted an injury 5 x 2 cm bone incised body wound on the left cheek. The specific opinion of PW7 was that the injury in Ext.P2 was caused with Mo1 knife. Therefore, the medical evidence is corroborating the evidence of PW1. 7. PW14 conducted the investigation and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW12 verified the investigation and laid charge before Court, where no infirmity was found in the investigation. Analysing the evidence, it is found that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the concurrent conviction u/s.324 IPC by the courts below is only to be confirmed. 8. It is pertinent to note that previous criminal Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 5 antecedents were not the revision reported against petitioner. Moreover, PW1 was consumed alcohol at the time of incident, which was recorded in Ext.P2 wound certificate by the doctor. Considering the nature of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this is a fit case to show some leniency in the sentence, in view of the Apex Court decision in **Modi Ram and another** v. **State of Madhyapradesh** [AIR 1972 SC 2438]. PW1 is also entitled to get some amount as compensation as **Suresh and another** v. per the decision of the Apex Court in **State of Haryana** [(2015) 2 SCC (Crl) 45]. Hence, the revision petitioner is sentenced as follows:- - (a) He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for - three months u/s.324 IPC. (b) He is also directed to pay a compensation of ₹25,000/- u/s.357 Cr.P.C., in default of payment of Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 6 compensation, imprisonment for one month. (c) If compensation is realized, it shall be disbursed to the PW1. Crl.R.P. is partly allowed. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 7 Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 8 Crl.R.P. No.4291/2006 9