IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1345 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.175/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC II), THODUPUZHA SC.104/1995 of ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SKARIA @ BABY, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, @ JOSE, PALATHINADIYIL HOUSE, KATTIPPARA KARA, VATHUKUTY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1345 of 2002 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 Order The accused is the revision petitioner. He was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years. The appeal filed by him before the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him. 2. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner would submit that the evidence was not appreciated by the two courts in the correct perspective and hence the conviction has to be set aside. It is further argued by the learned counsel that in fact in the incident the accused also had sustained injury, but the evidence regarding that aspect adduced by the defence was not properly considered by the courts below. It is also argued that in any event the sentence awarded by the two courts below is disproportionate and excessive and so in case the conviction is to be upheld, the sentence may be reduced. 3. The incident took place on 10.3.1993 at about 7 PM. Crl.R.P.1345/02 2 While P.W.1 was walking along the Karimkunnam-Palai road the accused suddenly came from behind and stabbed him with a knife. P.W.1 ran for his life but he fell down on the road. The accused chased and stabbed him repeatedly. This evidence was corroborated by P.W.2, an eye witness. Other circumstances were also relied upon by the courts below to find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Injury No.1 noted in Ext.P7, which was proved by the doctor, would show that P.W.1 had in fact a providential escape. Injury No.1 as aforesaid was an incised wedge shaped injury over the right side of chest which passed through diaphram and pleura direct downwards. Other injuries were also found on the body of P.W.1. In these circumstances, the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 307 is only to be confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the incident had taken place in the year 1993, i.e., more than 17 years back and hence leniency may be shown to the accused. In the nature of the injury caused by the accused and the manner in which those injuries were inflicted cannot persuade the court to show leniency to the accused. However, considering Crl.R.P.1345/02 3 all the aspects, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner will stand modified reducing the substantive sentence to R.I. for five years with direction that the revision petitioner will pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to P.W.1, the defacto-complainant. In the result, this revision is disposed of as stated below: The conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 307 is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the revision petitioner is sentenced to R.I. for five years and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to P.W.1, the defacto-complainant and in default to pay the said amount, the revision petitioner/accused will undergo R.I. for one year. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge shall execute the sentence without delay. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.R.P.1345/02 4 Crl.R.P.1345/02 5