IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 2727 of 2005() 1. C.P.PADMANABHA PANICKER, ... Petitioner Vs 1. RAJAN, S/O.KESAVAN, THALAPPOTHRA ... Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA For Respondent :SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :17/09/2007 O R D E R V. RAMKUMAR, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl. R.P. No. 2727 OF 2005 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 17th day of September, 2007 O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in
Crime No.79/2000 of Kumarakom Police Station. He challenges
the sentence of fine imposed by the lower appellate court in
modification of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six
months for the conviction under section 324 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarized as
follows:-
The first accused is the sister’s son-in-law of the defacto
complainant examined as PW1. The accused had abused the
wife of PW1 in filthy language. PW1 complained to the police.
Infuriated by the said conduct of PW1, at about 9.00 p.m. on
21.6.2000 while PW1 was returning home the accused hid himself
behind a well near the house of PW1 and when PW1 emerged he
stabbed PW1 with a knife on his face uttering that he would teach
him a lesson. As a result of the stab, PW1 sustained 4 inside
injuries – one on the nose at philtrum, second on the dorsum of the
tongue, 3rd on the upper lip and the fourth, a large haemotoma at
the sub lingual region. The accused has thereby committed an
Crl.R.P.No.2727/05
: 2 :
offence punishable under section 324 IPC.
3. The trial court convicted the 1st respondent of the said
offence and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six
months. On appeal preferred by the 1st respondent herein as
Criminal Appeal No.248/05 before the Additional Sessions Judge
(Adhoc-II), Kottayam, that court also confirmed the conviction but
modified the sentence into one of fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default
to pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months with a
further direction to pay the fine amount as compensation. The
only justification given by the lower appellate court for altering the
sentence of imprisonment into fine was the following:-
” The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the close relationship of PW1
and the accused ought to have taken note of
the learned Magistrate while awarding
sentence and harsh sentence of
imprisonment could only break their
proximity in relationship. I think that the
learned counsel is right in his submission
and considering the relationship of the two
sides it would have been better that the
sentence could have been substituted one
for fine.”
Crl.R.P.No.2727/05
: 3 :
4. The above observation can hardly be a valid ground for
awarding the flee-bite sentence as has been imposed by the lower
appellate court. The prime consideration for imposing a proper
sentence by the convicting court are-
(i) The motive which impelled the accused to mount an
attack on the victim;
(ii) The conduct, if any, of the victim towards the accused
immediately prior to the criminal act complained of. This will
indicate whether the commission of offence was provoked or
unprovoked;
(iii) The weapon, if any, used for inflicting the injuries and
the manner of infliction of the injuries;
(iv) The severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim;
(v) Subsequent conduct of the offender including contrition
or remorse, if any, displayed by the offender;
(vi) The antecedents of the offender;
(vii) Relationship between the offender and the victim.
5. Relationship by itself cannot be the sole criteria for
either taking a lenient view or for taking a harsh view on the
question of sentence. It all depends on the facts and
Crl.R.P.No.2727/05
: 4 :
circumstances of each case. The lower appellate court did not
take into account the other relevant considerations while imposing
the sentence. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the
lower appellate court has not addressed itself as to the need for
imposing a proper sentence on the 1st respondent accused.
Hence, the sentence imposed by the lower appellate court is set
aside and the matter is remitted to that court for imposing a proper
sentence according to law.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks