SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2024-8-32
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on August 13,2024

SAKTHIVEL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANJAYSINH RAMRAO CHAVAN V. DATTATRAY GULABRAO PHALKE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA MANAGING DIRECTOR WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS VS. PUTTUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI:PUTHUMANA ILLATH JATHAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN RAO VS. SHANKARGOUDA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The revision petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.487/2011 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Palakkad against whom the Circle Inspector of Police, Chittoor had filed final report alleging the commission of offence under Ss. 450 and 304 of the I.P.C. The allegation against him is that, on 25/7/2010 at about 09:00 p.m, he criminally trespassed into the house of the deceased Vellayyan with the intention of committing rape of his daughter, and thereafter when Vellayyan and his wife woke up and tried to catch him, he pushed aside Vellayyan forcefully resulting in his fall leading to fatal injuries causing death. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the revision petitioner guilty of Ss. 448 and 323 I.P.C and convicted him for the aforesaid offences. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.1,000.00 under Sec. 448 I.P.C and another term of simple imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.1,000.00 under Sec. 323 I.P.C, with a default clause of simple imprisonment for three months each in the event of nonpayment of fine. In the appeal filed as Crl.A.No.174/2013, the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad confirmed the conviction, and modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months under Ss. 448 and 323 I.P.C and fine of Rs.1,000.00 each with a default clause of simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent findings of conviction and the modified sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.
(2.)Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent.
(3.)The point to be decided is whether the judgment dtd. 16/12/2014 of the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.A.No.174/2013 upholding the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Ss. 448 and 323 I.P.C and imposing punishment as stated above, is liable to be interfered with in this revision.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.