BINOY AND ANR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 288-289 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 13, 2015

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.288-289 OF 2015
             [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.6240-6241 of 2014]


Binoy & Anr.                                               .....Appellants

                                   Versus

State of Kerala                                            .....Respondent



                               J U D G M E N T


SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.

Leave granted.
On behalf of both the appellants, the initial submission is  to  the  effect
that their conviction for offences under Sections 324, 452 and 323,  IPC  is
not justified by the prosecution evidence available on  record.   But  on  a
perusal of the judgment of the trial court which  convicted  the  appellants
for offences under Sections 308, 452 and 323 read with  Section  34  of  the
IPC as well as the appellate judgment by the High Court  which  altered  the
conviction under Section 308 IPC to one  under  Section  324  IPC  and  also
reduced the sentences awarded by the trial court  to  rigorous  imprisonment
for six months under Section 324 IPC and R.I. for three  months  each  under
Sections 452 and 323 IPC, we find no  merit  in  the  aforesaid  contention.
Both the injured witnesses P.W.1 and 2 as well as P.W.8 have  supported  the
prosecution case which also gets support from the  injury  reports  of  both
the injured witnesses.  Hence, we find no good reason to interfere with  the
conviction of the appellants.

3.    The other issue raised on behalf of the appellants is  that  the  High
Court while allowing the appeal in part failed to give any reasons  for  not
extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants.   The
trial court, while considering the question of sentence,  specifically  held
that considering the  nature  of  the  offences  committed  by  the  accused
persons the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be  invoked  in  their  favour
and there were  no  extenuating  circumstances  in  favour  of  the  accused
persons.  In appeal, the High Court has also noticed the serious  allegation
of use of sharp weapon such as sword by the accused persons who  chased  the
injured and then caused incised injuries on their persons.   Even  then  the
High Court showed leniency by altering conviction under Section 308  IPC  to
one under Section 324 IPC.  It also reduced sentence of three years  to  six
months for Section 324 IPC and further reduced sentence of six  months  each
under Section 323 IPC and three years each under Section  452  IPC  to  R.I.
for a period of three months each under Sections 452 and 323 IPC.  From  the
order of the trial court on the question of sentence it transpires that  the
only plea for showing leniency was a claim  that  the  appellants  have  got
aged mother.
In the facts and circumstances, the view taken by the trial  court  for  not
extending the Probation of Offenders Act cannot  be  faulted  and  hence  we
find no good reason to interfere in the matter.
Both the  appeals  which  arise  out  of  common  judgment  are,  therefore,
dismissed.


......................................J.
                            [M.Y. EQBAL ]


......................................J.
                                  [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]
New Delhi.
February 13, 2015.