2024 Supreme(Ker) 500
JOHNSON JOHN
Vijayamma, w/o. Kumaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM, SRI.C.R.PRAMOD, SRI.P.M.RAFIQ, SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For the Respondent: SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, SRI. SANAL P. RAJ
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Case Details: The case is Vijayamma, w/o. Kumaran vs. State Of Kerala, decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 28-06-2024 in Crl. Appeal No. 735/2007 & Crl. R.P. No. 2458 of 2007 (!) .
- Charges and Acts: The accused were convicted under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon (a sickle tied to a bamboo stick) (!) (!) . The court referred to the Indian Penal Code (Sections 308, 324, 34, 427) and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Sections 4, 5, 11(1)) (!) .
- Facts of the Incident: On 24.02.2006, during a property dispute regarding the construction of a first floor, the accused attacked the complainant (PW1) with a sickle attached to a bamboo stick, causing injuries to his flank and fingers (!) (!) (!) .
- Evidence Reliability: The court found the evidence of the injured witnesses (PW1 and PW2) reliable and trustworthy, supported by medical evidence from Dr. PW3 (wound certificate P2) and a prompt FIR registered on the same day (!) (!) (!) .
- Legal Principles on Injured Witnesses: The judgment cites Supreme Court precedents (Tahsildar Singh and Balu Sudam Khalde) establishing that evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value, should not be discarded lightly for minor contradictions or embellishments, and the broad substratum of their version must be considered (!) (!) (!) .
- Conviction Upheld: The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused against their conviction (!) .
- Probation Granted: The trial court had invoked Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to release the accused on probation of good conduct for one year, considering them first offenders and neighbors to foster amity (!) (!) . The High Court found the order legally sustainable as the trial court considered the relevant factors (!) .
- Compensation Awarded: While upholding the probation, the High Court exercised its power under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 11(1) to award compensation to the victim, directing each accused to pay Rs. 25,000 within two months (!) (!) .
- Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the Criminal Revision Petition was allowed in part with the direction to pay compensation (!) .
JUDGMENT :
The above appeal is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No.439 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam challenging their conviction under Section 324 IPC and releasing them on probation of good conduct for a period of one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (‘the Act’ for short). The Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the de fact complainant against the order releasing the accused on probation of good conduct, instead of awarding appropriate sentence for the offence committed.
2. The prosecution case is that on 24.02.2006, at about 9a.m., while the de facto complainant and his workers were making preparations in connection with the construction of the first floor of the building owned by the brother of the de facto complainant near Pattimattom junction, the accused, who are residing adjacent to that property, raised objection against the construction of the first floor and thereafter, they attacked the de facto complainant with a sickle tied at the top of a bamboo stick. It is alleged that the accused persons extended the sickle tied on a bamboo stick towards the neck of the de facto complainant and thereafter, pulled the same an
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
