SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35403

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
SUDEVAN @ KUNJUMON – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 434/2023



Advocates:
K.V.ANIL KUMAR, SWAPNA VIJAYAN, RADHIKA S.ANIL, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

The court modified the sentence of the revision petitioner based on the time already served in custody, ensuring justice is served.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 323, and 427 - Criminal Revision Petition challenging conviction and sentence - Revision petitioner found guilty and sentenced to simple imprisonment and fines for various offences - Sentence modified in light of custody already undergone. (Paras 3-7)

Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner was convicted for offences under IPC and sentenced to imprisonment and fines. The appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner was in custody since 8.11.2024.

Findings of Court:
The sentence was modified to reflect the time already served and adjusted fines.

Issues: The main issue was whether the sentence should be modified based on the time served in custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the interest of justice, the sentence should be modified considering the custody period.

Result: Sentence modified.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , challenging judgment in Crl.Appeal No.186/2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kollam, arising out of judgment in C.C.No.507/2008, dated 4.7.2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petition and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail.

3. In this matter, the revision petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC ’ hereinafter) and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of 15 days’ simple imprisonment under Section 323 of the . He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of 15 days’ simple imprisonment under Section 341 of the . The revision petitioner was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence of

3 months’ simple imprisonment under Section 427 of the IPC .

4. Although appeal filed, challenging the said verdict, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence.

5. Today, when this matter came up for admission, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, in connection with execution of the sentence, the revision petitioner was arrested on 8.11.2024 and has been in custody. The learned counsel also would submit that, in view of the custody of the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is satisfied with modification of sentence, confining the same to the period of custody undergone and also to pay Rs.5,000/- ordered under Section 427 of the IPC , with default imprisonment.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor also did not oppose the prayer.

7. On perusal of the verdicts under challenge, I am of the view that sentence is to be modified in the interest of justice, taking note of the custody of the revision petitioner on 8.11.2024. Accordingly, the sentence stands modified as under:

The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC is modified with direction to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 323 of the for a period of three months also is reduced to a period of 15 days. Further, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 427 of the or to undergo default imprisonment for a period of one month. The substantive sentence of imprisonment for the offences under and 323 of the , shall run concurrently. The default sentence imposed for the offence under of the shall run separately after undergoing the sentence imposed for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 of the .

If the revision peititoner has alredy undergone the sentence, the Jail Superintendent concerned is directed to release the revision petitioner on payment of fine for the offence under Section 427 of the IPC , if the revision petitioner’s custody is not necessary in connection with any other crime. If payment of fine is not effected, default imprisonment also shall be undergone by the revision petitioner, on completion of 15 days of imprisonment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top