Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
XX XX and Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 600 Of 2024
Decided On : 04-07-2024
For the Petitioner: M. Promodh Kumar, Maya Chandran.
For the Respondent: SR PP - Renjit George.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that actual control over a juvenile and acts of cruelty constitute sufficient grounds for conviction under the JJ Act and IPC, regardless of the circumstances of the victim's arrival at the accused's residence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ASSAULT - JJ Act, 2000 - Section 23; IPC - Section 324 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which penalizes cruelty to juveniles, and Section 324 of the IPC, which addresses voluntarily causing hurt. The court interpreted these sections to affirm that the accused had actual charge and control over the juvenile victim and committed acts of cruelty, leading to their conviction. The court also considered the sentencing provisions, ultimately modifying the sentences based on the circumstances of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with neglecting a juvenile victim and causing her physical harm, including burn injuries, while in their care. The trial court convicted them under Section 23 of the JJ Act and Section 324 of IPC, imposing sentences that were later modified by the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the convictions based on the evidence presented, including testimonies from the victim and medical reports, confirming that the accused had inflicted serious injuries on the juvenile victim.
Issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions under the JJ Act and IPC, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the actual control and custody of the victim by the accused were established, and the nature of the injuries supported the charges. The court also noted that the lack of evidence regarding how the victim arrived at the accused's residence was irrelevant to the established facts of cruelty and assault.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partially allowed, modifying the sentences to a lesser term of imprisonment and imposing fines, while confirming the convictions under the relevant sections of law.
ORDER :
(A. Badharudeen, J.) :
This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience) challenging the judgment dated 24.04.2023 in Crl.A. No.37/2022 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Vatakara arising out of the judgment dated 29.12.2021 in C.C. No.1128/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vatakara. The petitioners herein are the accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail, so as to exercise the limited power of revision available to this Court, where the trial court and the First Appellate Court concurrently found that the accused/petitioners herein committed offences punishable under Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred as ‘JJ Act’ for short] and Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for short), though the Appellate Court modified the sentence imposed to a lesser degree.
3. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, in between 1/1/2012 and 5/8/2014 the accused who were in actual charge and control over the juvenile victim, willfully neglected juvenile victim and made her to do household works, beat her using stick and hands and caused burn injuries and grievous hurt on her abdomen, face and leg using hot iron rod or spatula. On this premise, both accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 23 of the JJ Act and Section 324 of IPC.
4. The trial court secured the presence of accused for trial and finally tried the matter. During trial, PWs1 to 13 examined and Exts.P1 to P9 marked on the side of the prosecution. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., when opportunity was given, no witness examined and exhibits marked on the side of the accused.
5. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as under:
1. Both accused are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months u/S.23 of Juvenile Justice Act 2000.
2. Both accused are further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 years u/S.324 of IPC.
3. Both accused are undergone judicial custody from 17/9/14 to 1/10/14 during crime stage. Hence they are entitled to get set off u/S.428 Cr.P.C as per law.
4. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
6. When, the accused challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence as under:
a) The conviction of both appellants for the offence under section 23 of the JJ Act, 2000 and for the offence under section 324 of the IPC are confirmed.
b) The sentence for the offence under section 23 of the JJ Act, is reduced to simple imprisonment for three months.
c) The sentence for the offence under section 324 of IPC is reduced to simple imprisonment for six months.
d) Both accused are entitled to set off for the period from 07.09.2014 to 01.10.2014 u/s.428 of the Cr.PC.
e) The substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
7. Challenging the verdicts of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court, this revision petition has been filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, the evidence given by the PW9 doctor, relying on Ext.P5 wound certificate, does not suggest any burn injuries, though the prosecution alleges that the victim was subjected to burn injuries. He also submitted that, there was no materials placed by the prosecution to show how the minor reached the residence of the accused. On the above grounds he sought for interference in the verdicts under challenge or atleast as an alternative, prayed for substantive reduction in sentence.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the concurrent findin
