LAWS(KER)-2020-10-355

SEKHARA Vs. STATE

Decided On October 15, 2020
Sekhara Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 67 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kasargod and the accused in CC No.155 of 1997 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasargod. The offence alleged against the accused is punishable under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 and 304A of the Indian penal Code.

(2.) By the judgment dated 09.04.2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC, simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC, respectively. Further, the accused was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months more. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Challenging the conviction and sentence the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.67 of 2002 before the Additional Sessions Court (Adjoc II), Kasargod. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal in part confirming the conviction and sentence rendered under Section 279 and 304A of the IPC. However, the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 337 and 338 of the IPC were set aside. Further, the order of the trial court to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- was also set aside. Thus, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 337 and 338 of the IPC. The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and also to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 279 of the IPC. Both the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. This revision is against the judgment of the appellate court dated 30.11.2007.