Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUDARSANAN versus SUBASH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUDARSANAN v. SUBASH - Crl Rev Pet No. 20 of 1999 [2007] RD-KL 14508 (30 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 20 of 1999()

1. SUDARSANAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SUBASH
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY

Dated :30/07/2007

O R D E R

J.B. KOSHY, J.

Crl.R.P. NO. 20 of 1999

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2007

Order Revision petitioner is a police constable. He was convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code on a private complaint instituted by PW1. The complainant is an autorickshaw driver. The allegation of the complainant is that on 1.6.1993 at about 6.00 p.m. he was driving his autorickshaw from Ayoor to Veliyam with two passengers. When he reached at Ambalamkunnu, two police constables attached to Pooyappally police station showed signal to stop the vehicle. There was a gutter on the road and PW1 could not immediately stop the vehicle. But, after passing a few distance, the autorickshaw stopped. Provoked by this, the policemen boarded into the autorickshaw and asked PW1 to drive the vehicle to the Pooyappally police station. When he reached at the police station, they took PW1 into the police station. The revision petitioner was sitting inside the police station. When PW1 explained the reason for the failure of stopping the vehicle on the spot as directed by the police, the revision petitioner slapped on the left ear Crl.RP.No.20/99 of the complainant. As a result, PW1 sustained serious pain in the left ear which resulted in loss of hearing. Moreover, a petty case was charge-sheeted against him by the police. Immediately, PW1 went to the Holy Cross Hospital, Ayoor. After examining the bleeding from the left ear, he had given first aid and referred to Anchal Primary Health Centre where he was treated and referred to the E.N.T. Specialist, Kottarakkara. He continued his treatment from the E.N.T. Specialist, Kottarakkara as an inpatient till 11.6.1993. After discharge from the hospital, he filed the private complaint. Case of the petitioner in his statement under section 313 was that the complainant was charged with a petty offence by the Sub Inspector, Pooyappally. The complainant approached the revision petitioner for a recommendation to the Sub Inspector for avoiding him from the case. Since he did not obey, case was filed against him. PW1 deposed in terms of his complaint. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued from the Primary Health Centre. Ext.P3 is the medical certificate and Ext.P5 is the referal O.P.card. Ext.P6 is the prescription and Ext.P7 is the photostat copy of the certificate issued by PW2. PW3, an occurrence witness, who was travelling in the autorickshaw, supported the Crl.RP.No.20/99 case of PW1. He was travelling in the autorickshaw on 1.6.1993 from Ayoor to Veliyam. PW3 stated that PW1 was driving the vehicle. He supported the version given by PW1. When he reached at Ambalamkunnu, the police constables attached to the Pooyappally police station showed signal to stop the vehicle. Due to gutter, PW1 could not stop the vehicle immediately. He stopped the vehicle after passing a short distance. Provoked by this policemen took PW1 to the police station. PW3 was waiting outside the police station and he witnessed the incident of assault on PW1 by the petitioner. There was no enmity between PW3 and police. Evidence of PW3 was accepted by both the courts concurrently. I see no ground to interfere in the same in a revision application. Medical evidence was proved by examining PW2 doctor working in the Holy Cross Hospital, Ayoor. PW4 E.N.T. specialist and PW5 is a doctor attached to the Primary Health Centre, Anchal. Medical evidence would show due credence and corroboration of the version of PW1. Though the revision petitioner was convicted under section 323 IPC, he was released under section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Revision petitioner was also directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- by way of Crl.RP.No.20/99 compensation. The conviction passed by the trial court was confirmed by the appellate court. The amount of compensation ordered was reduced from Rs.1,000/-. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the complainant. Both courts concurrently found that the version of PW1, supported by PW2, eye witness, and corroborated by medical evidence was correct. I see no ground to interfere in the same in the revisional jurisdiction and the conviction is confirmed. He was not imposed with any imprisonment or fine, but, he was released under the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to PW1 as compensation. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am of the opinion that while awarding sentence, appellate court has taken a very lenient view. I see no ground to interfere in the conviction and releasing of the petitioner under the Probation of Offenders Act or compensation amount of Rs.1,000/- as ordered. The Crl.R.P. is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

vaa

J.B. KOSHY, J.

Crl.R.P. No.20/1999 Order

Dated:30th July, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.