VANAJA K.C. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Leave Petition is filed by the victim (mother of the deceased) challenging the inadequacy of compensation as well as inadequacy of sentence in S.C. No.632 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thalasseri. By the judgment impugned, the court below found the accused (2nd respondent herein) guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. No fine was imposed on the accused. The victim, contends in the appeal filed by her that the court below should have imposed death sentence on the accused and that compensation/fine should also have been imposed.

(2.) Originally, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2010 and the High Court, by the judgment dated 9.4.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The petitioner, mother of the deceased, filed Crl. Appeal No. 2096 of 2010 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. Crl. Appeal No. 395 of 2010 filed by the accused is pending disposal before the High Court after remand by the Supreme Court. After remand, the mother of the deceased filed the present Criminal Leave Petition seeking leave of this Court to appeal challenging the judgment of the court below to the extent indicated above.

(3.) The second respondent (accused) contends that the victim has no right to file an appeal under the proviso to Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of inadequate compensation when no compensation was granted by the trial court and when no fine was imposed out of which compensation could be granted. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Ahammed Vs. Abdul Latheef (2011 (2) KLT 889). The second respondent also contended that the date of occurrence being before the date of commencement of Act 5 of 2009 by which the proviso to Sec. 372 was inserted, the victim cannot maintain an appeal under the said proviso. The second respondent also contended that an appeal by the victim challenging lesser sentence is not maintainable.