1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 833   OF  2011

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5930/2010)

AZEEZ                       Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE OF KERALA                           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court  

under  Sections  304-A,  279  and  337  of  the  Indian  

Penal  Code  and  was  sentenced  to  undergo  simple  

imprisonment for one year under Section 304-A. He  

was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment  

for three months under Section 279 and three months  

under Section 337 of the IPC. However, the sentences  

were directed to run concurrently.   

The  appellant  filed  an  appeal  before  the  

Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) No.1,  

Thrissur, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed  

a  revision  before  the  High  Court  which  was  also  

dismissed. The appellant is thus before this Court.

2

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and perused the impugned judgment.

The  appellant  has  undergone  a  part  of  the  

sentence and has agreed to pay a compensation of  

Rs.2,35,000/- to the complainant. It is stated at  

the Bar that out of this amount, Rs.35,000/- has  

already been received by the complainant and a sum  

of Rs.2 lakhs has been deposited by the appellant in  

the Registry of this Court, which is kept in the  

fixed deposit. The learned counsel for the appellant  

submits  that  he  has  no  objection  if  the  amount  

deposited  with  the  Registry  is  paid  to  the  

complainant.  Similarly,  the  complainant  has  no  

objection  if  the  appellant  is  released  on  the  

sentence  already  undergone  by  him  if  the  

aforementioned amount is paid to her.   

On  a  consideration  of  the  totality  of  the  

facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the  

view that ends of justice would meet if the amount  

of Rs.2 lakhs, with interest, is directed to be paid  

to the complainant (Mrs. Valsala) and the sentence

3

of the appellant is reduced to the period already  

undergone by him.  We order accordingly.  

However, we make it clear that this case has  

been decided on the peculiar facts of this case and  

shall not be treated as a precedent.  

The  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the  

aforementioned observations and directions.  

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi; March 28, 2011.