Umesh, Sandeep, Rajesh and Jayprakash v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CRL.REV.PET NO. 987 OF 2011 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRA 760/2004 OF THE COURT OF SESSION, ``` ## **`THALASSERY`** ``` CC 314/2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,THALASSERY ``` ## **`REVISION PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1UMESH ,AGED 28 YEARS, THIRUVANGADI AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY,, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2SANDEEP AGED 27 YEARS , S/O. MANOHARAN KOTTIATH HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM DESOM,, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3RAJESH , AGED 25 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE,, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O. PREMANAD, SREELA BHAVAN, CHIRAKKARA,, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA (SHO, THALASSERY POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM. 2(ADDL. R2) REJIL S/O HARI, PRAVEEN HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, CHIRAKKARA DESOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.11.23 IN CRLMA 1/2023) 3(ADDL R3) A. SANIL KUMAR S/O VIJAYAN, ALAKKADAN HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGAM, CHIRAKKARA, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.11.23 IN CRLMA 1/2023) BY ADV K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN -R2 & R3 ``` ``` Smt Seetha S, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- R1 ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ``` ``` ON 08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 ## **C.S DIAS,J.** **--------------------------Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 ----------------------------Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** The revision petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment in Crl.A No.760/2004 of the Court of Session, Thalassery (Appellate Court), confirming the judgment in CC No.314/2002 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thalassery, (Trial Court) holding the revision petitioners guilty and convicting them for the offences under Secs.143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short, IPC) and sentencing them to imprisonment for different 3 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 terms with highest term for a period of 18 months for the offence under Sec.324 of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ## **Prosecution case in brief** 2. The prosecution case is that, on 03.03.2002, the accused together with ten unidentified persons formed an unlawful assembly and attacked CWs 1 and 2 and the 3[rd] accused wielded a sword causing fear to the people assembled there. The Police after investigation found that the accused have committed the above offences. 3. The accused denied the substance of accusation read over to them. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 in evidence. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing 4 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 against them in the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short, Code). ## **Trial Court Judgment** 4. The Trial Court, after analysing the materials placed on record, found the accused guilty and convicted them for the offences under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for different terms with the maximum period of eighteen months for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.760/2004 before the Appellate Court. 5 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 ## **Appellate Court judgment** 6. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the materials placed on record, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 7. It is questioning the correctness and propriety of the concurrent judgments of the courts below, the revision petition is filed. 8. Heard; Sri.P.P Ramachandran, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Smt.Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1[st] respondent and Sri.Rajesh Sukumaran, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3/the injured. 6 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 9. Today, when the revision petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled and the respondents 2 and 3 have filed affidavits stating that they are ready to settle the matter and have no objection in this Court compounding the offences. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the settlement arrived at between the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 is found to be genuine and bonafide. The State has no objection in the revision petition being allowed by way of composition. 11. This Court in **Soban v. State of Kerala [2021 (3) KLT Online 1179]** , after referring to the decisions 7 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Joshi v. State of Haryana [2003 (2) KLT 1062]; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012 (4) KLT 108 (SC)]; Bitan Sen Gupta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. [2018 KHC 7390 ]** and decisions of this Court in **Renjith v. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT SN 41 (C. No.56]** has held that if the requirements of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied, in the sense that it is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of non- justice, criminal proceedings involving compoundable offences can be quashed, notwithstanding the fact that the order of conviction has been passed against the accused provided the offence does not fall within the category of offences prohibited 8 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 to be quashed as per the guidelines laid down in **Gian Singh (Supra)** and the other decisions on the point. 12. I am in total agreement with the principles laid down in . **Soban (Supra)** 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after reading the affidavits of the respondents 2 and 3 and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited precedents, I am inclined to invoke the plenary powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below by the impugned judgments, which will augur the relationship between the parties and harmony in the society, which will in turn meet the ends of justice. 9 Crl.R.P No.987 of 2011 In the result, - (i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below in Crl.A. No.760/2004 and in C.C. No.314/2002 are set aside. - (ii) All further proceedings pursuant to the final report filed in Crime No.155/2002 of the Thalassery Police Station are quashed. - (iii) The bail bonds executed by the revision petitioners/accused and the sureties are hereby cancelled. SD/- sks/8.11.23 **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE**