Omanakkuttan vs The State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2020
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Omanakkuttan vs The State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2020
Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah
[email protected](Crl.)No.4500/19 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.800 OF 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.4500 of 2019) Omanakkuttan & Ors. ...Appellants Versus State of Kerala ...Respondent J U D G M E N T
R.Subhash Reddy,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal is filed by the
accused/A1 to A3, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2004,
on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-
1, Kottayam Division, aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2004 and the
judgment dated 23.02.2018 in criminal appeal No.
711 of 2004, passed by the High Court of Kerala, at
Ernakulam.
Signature Not Verified
3.
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
The appellants/accused A1 to A3, were tried for
Date: 2020.11.20
13:52:24 IST
Reason:
offence punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 308
1
[email protected](Crl.)No.4500/19
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short ‘IPC’). On conclusion of trial, by
appreciating oral and documentary evidence on
record, learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated
20.04.2004, convicted them for the aforesaid
offences. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years each, for the offence
under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and for
offence under Section 326 IPC, they were sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and
also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default
of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of two years each. The fine amount was
ordered to be paid to PW-1, as compensation. No
separate sentence is awarded for the offence under
Section 324 IPC.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and
sentence imposed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-1) of Kottayam Division, the
appellants herein have preferred appeal in criminal
appeal no.711 of 2004, before the High Court of
Kerala, at Ernakulam.
5. Vide judgment dated 23.02.2018, in criminal
appeal No.711 of 2004, the High Court while
2
[email protected](Crl.)No.4500/19
confirming the conviction, has modified the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years and to pay a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 308 read
with Section 34 IPC and in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for two years. While
maintaining the conviction for offence under
Section 326 IPC, reduced the sentence to three
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay compensation
of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two years. At the same time, the
High Court has not awarded any separate sentence
for offence under Section 324 IPC.
6. We have heard Mr. Adolf Mathew, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nishe Rajen
Shonker, learned counsel appearing for the State of
Kerala.
7. This Court, vide order dated 06.05.2019, issued
notice on the quantum of sentence only.
8. At the outset, learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that appellant nos. 1 and
2 have already served the sentence. As such, he is
not pressing the appeal for appellant Nos. 1 & 2
3
[email protected](Crl.)No.4500/19
and confined his submissions for appellant No.3
only.
9. It is submitted that though there is no
sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused, for the offence alleged, the Trial Court
has convicted the appellants and imposed a sentence
and same was erroneously confirmed in appeal by the
High Court. It is submitted that there was no light
at the alleged place of occurrence and they were
apprehended after 10 months of the incident. It is
further submitted that in any event the alleged
incident is occurred on 13.01.2002, and that the
appellants as well as injured are relatives, as
such a leniency may be shown in imposing the
sentence. Further it is submitted that in view of
his poor economic condition, he cannot afford to
pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for offence under
Section 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and
compensation of Rs.25,000/- for offence under
Section 326 IPC.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has made a
request to reduce the sentence as well as
compensation awarded by the High Court. On the
other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
4
[email protected](Crl.)No.4500/19
respondent-State, has submitted that multiple
fractures were inflicted by the appellants on the
injured, as such, no interference is called for.
11. Although learned counsel has made his
submissions on the merits of the matter, as this
Court has issued notice only on quantum of
sentence, we are not inclined to go into the merits
of conviction recorded. At the same time,
considering the fact that the incident occurred on
13.01.2002 and the 3rd appellant herein has already
served more than two years of sentence, and further
considering the totality of facts and circumstances
of the case, we are of the view that it is a fit
case to modify the sentence and reduce the
compensation of Rs.25,000/- each for offence under
Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and for
conviction under Section 326 IPC.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, while maintaining
the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, as
confirmed by the High Court, for the offence under
Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and also under
Section 326 IPC, we reduce the sentence imposed on
the 3rd appellant, for the period already undergone.
The compensation awarded for the offence under
5
[email protected](Crl.)No.4500/19
Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC is reduced to
Rs.5,000/-and similarly compensation of Rs.25,000/-
awarded for offence under Section 326 IPC is also
reduced to Rs.5,000/-. If the compensation, as
awarded, is not paid, the same shall be paid within
a period of two months from today to PW-1. At the
same time, the judgment of the Trial Court, for the
offence under Section 324 IPC, as confirmed by the
High Court is confirmed.
13. This criminal appeal is allowed partly, so far
as appellant No.3 is concerned, to the extent
indicated above and the conviction recorded and
sentence imposed by the the High Court, stands
modified accordingly.
……………….J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
……………….J.
[R.SUBHASH REDDY]
New Delhi;
NOVEMBER 20, 2020
6