High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-03-30The revision petitions stand allowed in part.

Velukuttan and others v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 73 of 2006 (with Crl.R.P. Nos. 73 and 158 of 2006)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2016-03-30
Court Decision / Holding: Revision petitions allowed in part; sentences modified as per the settlement and law; accused Nos.1, 2 and 5: 148 IPC; others: 143, 147, 323/341; fines and short custodial terms imposed; the accused to surrender on 10.05.2016 to suffer the modified sentences.
Final Disposition: The revision petitions stand allowed in part.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Velukuttan S/o Ayyappan Nair
Suresh S/o Sivasankaran Nair
Santhosh S/o Raveendran Nair
Santhosh S/o Raman
Ramesh S/o Sankarapillai

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.S. Sreedharan Pillai
• Sri. K.B. Sajeesh
• Sri. P. Gopinath
• Sri. C.S. Sunil
• Sri. C.G. Preetha
• Sri. M. Praveesh

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. T.K. Sandeep

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal revision petitions arising from C.C. No.151 of 2001 (Thodupuzha) challenging a concurrent conviction and sentence under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 341 read with section 149 IPC. The petitioners—Velukuttan, Suresh, Santhosh (two persons with the same name), and Ramesh—were found guilty by the courts below of forming an unlawful assembly and inflicting injuries on several persons with deadly weapons. The trial court and the Sessions Court (ADHOC-II) upheld the convictions and sentences. The prosecution led evidence from PW1 to PW10 and marked multiple exhibits. The petitioners contended that there is no perverse appreciation of evidence and that while the offences are non‑compoundable, the existence of a settlement among the parties should be given weight in fixing the sentence. The High Court noted the settled affidavits and observed that though non‑compoundable offences cannot be compounded, the quantum of sentence can be influenced by the settlement. Citing Gulab Das and Nanda Gopalan, it held that compromise can be considered in determining the sentence. Consequently, the Court modified the sentences: the accused were fined and given short terms of imprisonment in several counts, while others were kept under non‑custodial or limited custodial phrases where applicable. The petitions were allowed in part, and the respondents were directed to surrender on 10 May 2016 to suffer the modified sentences.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341 read with Section 149 IPCCrPC Section 320

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compromise/settlement can be taken into account for determining quantum of sentence (Gulab Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011(10) SCC 765)
Even if major offences are non‑compoundable, the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence (Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala, 2015 (3) Crimes 55 (SC))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners contended that the trial and appellate courts correctly appreciated the evidence; they argued that though the offences are non‑compoundable, the affidavits claiming settlement should be considered and a directed compromise under Sec. 320 CrPC sought. They asserted that the material on record does not warrant interference with concurrent convictions and that any reduction in sentence should be grounded in the compromise to secure ends of justice. They pressed that the profound goal is to avoid excessive punishment where settlements exist and to ensure justice by balancing severity with mercy, especially where injuries were not of grave severity.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/prosecution argued that the Courts below rightly convicted under the relevant sections and that the evidence supports a conclusion of unlawful assembly and injuries. They urged that non‑compoundable offences cannot be compounded; however, the possibility of considering a settlement to influence the sentence is permissible within constitutional and statutory bounds. They maintained that the court should not interfere with findings without perversity and that the ultimate objective is sentencing that reflects the harm caused and the conduct of the accused, while acknowledging the settlement in determining quantum of punishment.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gulab Das and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh	2011(10) SCC 765	Positive	The Court held that settlements/compromise can be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of sentence.
Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala	2015 (3) Crimes 55 (SC)	Positive	The Apex Court held that even if major offences are non-compoundable, the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Velukuttan and others v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/10TH CHAITHRA, 1938 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 73 of 2006 ( ) ------------------------------- Crl.A 68/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA CC 151/2001 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA ## REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:: ------------------------------------------ 1. VELUKUTTAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN NAIR, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, ARAKKULAM KARA,, ARAKKULAM VILLAGE. 2. SURESH, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, KANDOTHUMMATTEL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR KARA,, KUMARAMANGALAM. 3. SANTHOSH, S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, ARACKAL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR KARA,, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 4. SANTHOSH, S/O. RAMAN, PUTHIYAKUNNEL HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 5. RAMESH, S/O. SANKARAPILLAI, THACHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA,, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.K.B.SAJEESH SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.M.PRAVEESH ## RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R-R BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2016, ALONG WITH CRRP. 158/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. Nos.73 and 158 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of March 2016 ## O R D E R The accused in C.C.No.151/200 on the files of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupzuha filed these revision petitions challenging the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 341 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2. Heard 3. The prosecution allegation is that on 26.5.2001 at 12.45 p.m., the revision petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, like Crl.R.P.73 & 158/2006 **==> picture [29 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** iron pipe and attacked PW1 to PW6 causing injuries on the them. Accused Nos.1 and 5 used iron pipes to inflict injuries on the injured. The other accused fisted and kicked the injured persons. 4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Ext.P1 to P9 were marked for the prosecution, besides identifying MO1 series. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioners. 5. The courts below correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and concurrently found that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 committed the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 341 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and accused Nos.3, 4 and 6 committed the offences under sections 143, Crl.R.P.73 & 158/2006 **==> picture [29 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** 147, 323 and 341 read with section 149 I.P.C., repelling the contentions of the revision petitioners. No circumstance is available before the court to indicate that the appreciation of evidence by the courts below was perverse or incorrect. In the said circumstances, the concurrent finding of conviction by the courts below, does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6 **.** It has been submitted by the learned advocates for the revision petitioners that affidavit has been filed by PW1 and PW4 to PW6 stating that the matter has been settled and hence, they are not having any further grievance against the revision petitioners. A petition under Section 320 of the Code to grant permission to compound the offence and to record the composition, has also been filed. Crl.R.P.73 & 158/2006 **==> picture [29 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** In fact, the so called affidavit is not an affidavit at all. However, since the offences include the offecnes which are non-compoundable also, the request of the revision petitioners to grant permission to compound the offence cannot be granted. However, it appears from the so called affidavit and the averments in Crl.M.A. 1632 of 2016 that the matter has been settled by PW1 and PW4 to PW6 with the revision petitioners. 7. The Apex Court in Gulab Das and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 10 SCC 765] held that the settlements/compromise arrived at by the parties can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants. Crl.R.P.73 & 158/2006 : 5 : 8. In Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala [2015 (3) Crimes 55 (SC)], the Apex Court held that even if the major offences for which the accused had been convicted are non-compoundable, the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. 9. It has been submitted that PW2 and PW3 are abroad and hence, they could not sign the application, even though the matter was in fact settled by them also. PW2 and PW3 did not sustain any serious injury in the incident. The injuries sustained by the other injured persons are also not serious injuries. Since the matter has been settled between the parties, I am of the view that the factum of settlement can be taken into consideration to reduce the sentence awarded by the courts below. Accordingly, the Crl.R.P.73 & 158/2006 **==> picture [29 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** sentence awarded by the courts below against all the revision petitioners stands modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each under Section 143 I.P.C., a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each under Section 147 I.P.C., a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each under section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.500/each and in default to simple imprisonment for five days each under Section 341 read with Section 149 I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. So also, the sentence awarded by the courts below against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 stands Crl.R.P.73 & 158/2006 : 7 : modified and reduced to a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default to simple imprisonment for ten days each each under Section 148 I.P.C. and imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 324 I.P.C., to secure the ends of justice. In the result, these revision petitions stand allowed in part, as above. The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on 10.5.2016 to suffer the sentence. Sd/ ## **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** _dl/1.4.2016_ _// True Copy // PA to Judge_