RAMAN Vs. FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition at the instance of the injured in CC 184/84 in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Cochin is to 'enhance the sentence'. Court below found that on 17-6-83 at 11.30 p.m., respondents in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into the property of first petitioner and caused grievous hurt to him, requiring hospitalisation for about four weeks offences punishable under S.447, 323, 324 and 326 read with S.34 IPC. First petitioner, inter alia, sustained a fracture of the nasal bone. The magistrate thought that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court, would meet the ends of justice; petitioners thought otherwise, and moved this court under S.482 of the Code. Counsel for accused respondents submitted that the case be remitted to the Trial Court for imposing an appropriate sentence instead of revising in calender.

(2.) A question of importance touching an area of extreme sensitivity arises for consideration. Sentencing policy is of vital importance in the dispensation of criminal law, and its resonant timbre determines the quality of sentencing jurisprudence.

(3.) Criminal law has a social purpose to achieve and, it is in the realms of corrective jurisprudence. In the words of Roscoe Pound: