Page 1

1

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.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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

Page 2

2

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. 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.

4. In the facts and circumstances, the view taken by the trial

Page 3

3

court for not extending the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be  faulted  and  hence  we  find  no  good  reason  to  interfere  in  the  matter.

5. 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.