IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1086 of 2002()
1. SAKEER, S/O. KUTTIALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :31/10/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
---------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1086 of 2002
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offences
under Sections 341 and 352 IPC and sentenced, as modified by
the appellate court, to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and
also to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month for the offence under Section 352 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 27.9.1995 at about
4.30 p.m. the revision petitioner/accused wrongfully restrained
PW1, a house wife, and abused and spitted on her body.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the
testimony of PWs’ 1 to 7 and Exts. P1 to P3.
4. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 her husband
was along with her at the time of incident. PW3 is a person who
has witnessed the incident. All the above witnesses have testified
CRRP1086/2002 2
in support of the prosecution version. It was brought out that
the incident has taken place when PW1 was going to her house
along with her husband and the child. PW1 had filed a complaint
before the police as the accused had sent her certain letters
with illicit motives and that the accused was enraged on
account of the complaint filed by her. The version of PW1 is that
he shouted at her that he will see that her desire to institute
cases is finished and spitted on her body. The evidence of
PWs’ 1 to 3 corroborates that no contradictions with their
previous statement has been brought out. In the circumstances
and in view of the concurrent findings of the court below, I find
no reason to interfere in the findings that the accused is guilty of
the offences alleged. The conviction is confirmed.
5. Counsel for the revision petitioner has pleaded for
leniency. It is pointed out that more than a decade has elapsed
since the commencement of the proceedings and that he has
been facing the prosecution so far. The counsel has sought for
avoiding the term of imprisonment. In the circumstances and in
view of the long pendency of the matter, I find that the sentence
of imprisonment is to be avoided and hence with respect to the
CRRP1086/2002 3
offence under Section 352 IPC, the sentence is modified to
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW1 and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence is
awarded for the offence under Section 341 IPC. The revision
petitioner/accused is granted three months’ time to remit the
amount of compensation. He shall appear before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram on 31.1.2008 to
receive sentence.
The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl