Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SUNDARA RAJ @ KATHIPPARA SUNDARA RAJ – Appellant
Versus
J. GEETHA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 196 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI. BREEZ M.S
The court ruled that, considering the appellants' age, the punishment under Section 500 IPC could be converted from imprisonment to a fine.
Headnote:This revision petition concerns the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.252/2019, confirming conviction under Section 500 IPC. The learned Magistrate imposed simple imprisonment and compensation. The petitioners, aged over 70, sought leniency. The court held that the sentence could be converted to a fine. The final sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, with the compensation treated as such.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and initial sentencing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. request for lenient punishment based on age. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. legal basis for modifying the punishment. (Para 4) |
ORDER
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2026 This Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.252/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Thiruvananthapuram, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.01.2022 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara under Section 500 IPC .
2. The court below sentenced the revision petitioners to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the revision petitioners have already deposited the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- each before the learned Magistrate. His limited prayer is to avoid the imprisonment from the substantive sentence.
4. The punishment provided for the offence under Section 500 IPC is simple imprisonment for a term which may extended to two years, or with fine, or with both. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has imposed only simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and no fine was imposed against the revision petitioners.
5. According to the learned counsel, both the revision petitioners are now more than 70 years old and therefore he prayed for taking a linent view in their favour.
6. The above submission was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Since the punishment provided for the offence under Section
500 IPC is simple imprisonment for two years or with fine, or with both and since the revision petitioners are more than 70 years old, I hold that, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the court below can be avoided by converting the compensation into fine.
8. In the result, the sentence is modified as fine of Rs.10,000/-
each. The compensation already deposited by the revision petitioners will be treated as fine. The fine amount deposited by the revision petitioners shall be released to the defacto complainant/1st respondent as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
