Kerala High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2014
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/8TH KARTHIKA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1749 of 2014
----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 51/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - II,
KALPETTA
CC 734/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
----------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAN, MOOLAHOUSE, CHETTIPAMBRA
CHEEYAMBAM, IRULAM, SULTHAN BATHERY.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT AND STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.
2. SARASWATHI, AGED 61 YEARS,
W/O.APPUCHETTY, SARASWATHI BHAVAN, PUTHENCHIRAKUNNU
KALOOR, KUPPADI AMSOM, WAYANAD-673592.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SASI
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1749 Of 2014
---------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2014.
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.734/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Batheri. The calendar case arose out of Final Report/Charge Sheet filed by the police in Crime No.530/2009 of Sulthan Batheri Police Station alleging offence under Secs.448, 341, 325, 506(1) of IPC. The 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The brief of the prosecution case is that on 20.9.2009 at about 10:30 a.m., while the 2nd respondent- defacto complainant herein was preparing to go out, the petitioner knocked the door and he attempted to give some money to her for which she refused and he further attacked her asking the ornaments of her deceased mother and it is alleged that she sustained injuries in the said attack and thus the petitioner committed the said offences. The trial court had convicted the petitioner under Secs.448 & 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to ::2::
Crl.R.P.No.1749 Of 2014 undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Sec.448 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Sec.325 IPC. The petitioner filed Crl.A.No.51/2012 before the Sessions Court, Kalpetta against the said order of conviction. The lower appellate court upheld the order of conviction and the sentence under Sec.325 is modified as simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.4,500/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay file of Rs.500/- under Section 448 IPC. This revision petition has been filed to set aside the impugned judgment dated 11.6.2014 of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kalpetta in Crl.A.No.51/2012 etc.
2. Heard Sri.Aneesh Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Rahul Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent- State.
3. The petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) have filed a compounding petition dated ::3::
Crl.R.P.No.1749 Of 2014 29.10.2014 in Crl.M.A.6801/2014 with a prayer in this Crl.R.P which reads as follows:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to compound the offence as against the petitioner and acquit the petitioner in C.C.No.734/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Sulthan Bathery and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.51/2012 of the Addl.Sessions Court-II, Wayanad and allow the revision petition."
It is stated that the offences involved in the case are those under Secs.448 & 325 IPC and that the said offences are compoundable as per the provisions in the Cr.P.C. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 stipulate that the offences punishable under the sections of the IPC specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. In that table, Sec.448 (house trespass) is included as per which the person in possession of the property trespassed upon is the person by whom the offence can be compounded. Further sub-section (2) of Sec.320 provides that the offences punishable under the sections of the IPC specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of ::4::
Crl.R.P.No.1749 Of 2014 that table. In the table thereunder the offence under Sec.325 (voluntary causing grievous hurt) has been included and is stipulated therein that the person to whom hurt is caused is the person by whom the offence can be compounded. As per the impugned judgment in the criminal appeal, the petitioner has been convicted for the above said offence under Secs.448 & 325 IPC.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard, who has also not raised any objection in view of the compounding petition filed by the petitioner and 2nd respondent based on their settlement of the disputes. The offence under Sec.448 of IPC can be compounded as per the provisions of Sec.320(1) by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon.
The offence under Sec.325 IPC can be compounded by the person and with the permission of the Court.
5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case Thankamma v. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLT 846] considered the scope for allowing a compounding petition instituted in a Crl. Revision Petition. In that decision the Division Bench has held that the powers under Sec.482 Cr.P.C can be ::5::
Crl.R.P.No.1749 Of 2014 appropriately invoked for allowing a compounding petition while considering a Crl.Revision Petition and accordingly, allowed the Crl.M.A filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by compounding all the compoundable offences alleged against the accused therein and quashing the non-compoundable offences and accordingly acquitted the accused. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the 2nd respondent had settled all the disputes with the petitioner and that in the interest of justice, the prayer in the compounding petition may be allowed.
6. After hearing the submissions of the parties concerned and on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the rival parties have settled the disputes amicably, it is only fair in the interest of justice, that the prayer for compounding may be allowed. Accordingly, in the light of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Thankamma v. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLT 846] it is ordered in the interest of justice that Crl.M.A.No.6801/2014 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C in Crl.R.P.No.1709/2014 is allowed and it is ordered ::6::
Crl.R.P.No.1749 Of 2014 that offences in which the petitioner has been convicted shall stand compounded and accordingly, the petitioner/accused is acquitted and set at liberty.
The Crl.R.P. stands finally disposed of as above.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-