Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
P.P. Sanal S/O Chandran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER
1. Criminal Revision Petition No. 382/2024 has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter) and the revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 632/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur, arose out of Crime No. 163/2015 of Irikkur Police Station, Kannur. He assails conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate and its confirmation by the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery, as per judgment in Crl. A. No. 283/2019, dated 3.2.2024.
2. The parties in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 382/2024 will be referred as ‘the prosecution’ and ‘the accused’ hereinafter, for easy reference.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the relevant records.
4. Here, the prosecution allegation is that, the accused herein committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter). In a nutshell, the allegation is that, at about 1.00 a.m. on 17.3.2015, the accused committed lurking house-trespass by night and trespassed upon the house of the de facto complainant, having building No. P
A criminal court must impose the statutory minimum sentence as prescribed by law, without discretion to reduce it.
A criminal court is bound to impose the statutory minimum sentence for offenses, without discretion to reduce it, highlighting the importance of adhering to legislative mandates in sentencing.
The court upheld the conviction under Sections 451 and 354 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of witness testimonies and reducing the sentence for Section 354 from two years to one year R.I.
The court emphasized that sentences imposed on guilty pleas should consider reformative justice, prioritizing leniency unless serious prior conduct is evidenced.
The court established that while convictions can be upheld, sentences may be adjusted based on the duration of pre-sentence custody and the circumstances surrounding the trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an attempt to commit an offense under Section 354(C) of the Indian Penal Code can lead to conviction, even if the offense was not completed.
Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless judgments are perverse or unreasonable.
The High Court does not re-appraise evidence unless findings are grossly erroneous in revisional jurisdiction under Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
