C.P.Padmanabha Panicker vs Rajan on 17 September, 2007

0
102
Kerala High Court
C.P.Padmanabha Panicker vs Rajan on 17 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *