SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Puthalan Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA,
1941

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 602/2004 DATED 23-02-
2007 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 59/2000 DATED 29-10-2004
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,MALAPPURAM

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PUTHALAN ABDUL SALAM
S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, KUZHIMANNA AMSOM,
EDAKKAPARAMBA DESOM, ALUMCHUVADU, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ASI OF POLICE, KONDOTTY,
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 ADDL.R2. SAIDALAVI
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O KUNJAYAMU,
VARADIKKUTHU HOUSE,
KUZHIMANNA-673641,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

3 ADDL.R3. RAMLA
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O SAIDALAVI,
VARADIKKUTHU HOUSE,
KUZHIMANNA-673641,
ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND AND 3RD
RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 24.05.2019 IN
2
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

CRL.M.A.NO. 1/2018 IN CRL.R.P.NO.4633/2007.

R1 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.M.ANUROOP

SRI B JAYASURYA-SR PP

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the accused in the case C.C No.

59/2000 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Malappuram.

2. The petitioner was convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 452, Section323, Section506(ii) and Section354 IPC by

the trial court. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to

pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for

the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC and to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine

of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence

punishable under Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence

punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC and to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the offecne

punishable under Section 354 IPC.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court
4
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

of Session, Manjeri, challenging the conviction entered against

him and the sentence imposed on him. However, the appellate

court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the

appeal. The petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of

guilty, conviction and sentence made against him by the courts

below.

4. On the basis of the plea made by the counsel for

the petitioner that the matter has been settled between the

de facto complainant and the other victim of the offences, they

were impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3 in the

revision petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

second and the third respondents and also the learned Public

Prosecutor.

6. I have perused the judgments of the trial court as

well as the appelate court. I find that the courts below have

properly appreciated the evidence in the case. There is no

perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below

warranting interference with the judgments passed by them.

Conviction of the revision petitioner is only to be confirmed.

7. Regarding the sentence to be imposed on the
5
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

petitioner, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as

well as the second and the third respondents that the matter

has been settled between the petitioner and the second and

the third respondents, who are the victims of the offences.

The second and the third respondents have also filed affidavits

to the effect that the matter has been settled between them

and the petitioner. Considering the fact that the matter has

been settled between the parties subsequently, I find that the

sentence imposed on the revision petitioner can be modified.

8. Though the revision petitioner is convicted of the

offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, I find that imposing

a sentence of imprisonment on him for that offence is not

mandatory. The incident had occurred on 14.01.2000. It is

only several years later Section 354 IPC was amended and a

sentence of imprisonment for a period of not less than one

year has been made mandatory for that offence.

9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed.

Conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 452, Section323, Section506(ii) and Section354 IPC is confirmed. The

sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified as

follows. He is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the
6
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4633 OF 2007

court and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only)

and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence

punishable under Section 452 IPC. He is also sentenced to

pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for the

offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period

of 15 days. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the

rising of the court for the offence punishable under Section

506(ii) IPC. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-

(Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for

the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The

substantive sentences of imprisonment till the rising of the

Court shall run concurrently.

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

JUDGE

rpk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation