Kerala High Court
Thami @ Kunhutty vs The State Of Kerala on 20 December, 2012
Author: N.K.Balakrishnan
Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 459 of 2003 ( )
-------------------------------
CRA.157/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI
CC.147/1992 of JUDL.MAG.OF FIRST CLASS-I, MANJERI
------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED::
-----------------------------------------
THAMI @ KUNHUTTY,
S/O. PARAKKUTH KOPPA, CHUZHALIKKAD, KOOTTILANGADI
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE::
---------------------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
KOCHI-31.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 20-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
jvt
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.459 of 2003
---------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of December 2012
O R D E R
Petitioner was concurrently held guilty of the offences punishable under Secs.323 and 354 IPC. He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo R.I. for 3 months for the offence under Sec.323 IPC and to R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Sec.354 IPC. The appellate court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to S.I. for two months each and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to PW1. (The learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner only for the offences under Secs.323 and 354 IPC and not under Sec.324 IPC. There is a mistake in the judgment of the appellate court. Similarly, PW1 is the victim/de facto complainant. In the last portion of the sentence passed by the appellate court, the compensation was directed to be paid to PW2. It should Crl.R.P. No.459 of 2003 -: 2 :- have been 'PW1'. There also such a clerical mistake is seen).
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the courts below went wrong in placing reliance on the evidence given by PW1. (It is observed by the learned Sessions Judge that there is a mistake in showing the rank of the witnesses also. To avoid further confusion, the victim in this case is hereinafter referred to as PW1. She was shown as PW1 in the appendix of the judgment of the trial court also).
3. The incident allegedly took place on 16.8.1990 at about 7.30 AM. According to PW1, the accused trespassed into her house and caught hold of her hair and beat on her face with a chappel and also kicked on her abdomen. The accused tore the clothes worn by PW1 and also bit on her breast. She cried aloud and the accused ran away from the spot. She was examined by PW7, the doctor at 11.30 AM on the same day. The specific allegation as to how she Crl.R.P. No.459 of 2003 -: 3 :- sustained injury was mentioned by PW1 to the doctor. Those allegations are seen incorporated in the wound certificate (Ext.P3). Besides, there was a specific allegation that the accused kicked on her abdomen. The doctor noticed a contusion 3 x 2 cm on the right mandible which did correspond to the allegation that she was beaten on her face with a chappel. Injury No.2 was abrasion 2.5 cm on the upper aspect of right breast. There were small multiple abrasions over the right breast below the injury just stated above. Multiple abrasion on both fore-arm was also noticed. Above all, as the injured complained of bleeding from vagina, the doctor on examination could find slight bleeding from uterus. PW1 had complained of lower abdominal pain. These allegations would strengthen the evidence given by PW1 that she was kicked on her abdomen by the accused. The multiple abrasion found on her breast would also support her case. Her evidence is corroborated by PWs.4 and 5. The evidence given by PW1 and the Crl.R.P. No.459 of 2003 -: 4 :- witnesses mentioned above was properly appreciated by the two courts below. The evidence given by the doctor and the wound certificate would clinch the issue that the accused attacked PW1 in the manner stated above. Therefore, the conviction is only to be confirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident took place about 20 years back and so, the sentence may be modified.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed that submission pointing out the fact that it is a case where a woman was kicked on her abdomen causing bleeding from uterus. Besides PW1, a woman was brutally attacked by the accused as can be seen from the injury she sustained. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, I find that the sentence is to be modified.
In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below :-
The conviction is confirmed. Crl.R.P. No.459 of 2003 -: 5 :- In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the petitioner is sentenced to S.I. for one month each for the offences under Secs.323 and 354 IPC and also to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as compensation to PW1 for the offence under Sec.354 IPC; in default whereof, the petitioner will undergo S.I. for three months.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt