2C.L.R. 1985June 13 (TRIANTAFVLLIDES, Ρ, PIKIS, KOURRIS. JJ ] 1 ARISTOTEUS U\ZAROU CHARALAMBOUS, 2 GREGORIS COSTAPERICLEOUS, Appellants, ν THE REPUBLIC, Respondent. (Cnminal Appeal Nos 4603, 4604) 5 10 Sentence — Attempt to kill— Fiveyears' imprisonment for appellant 1, who masterminded the offence and threeyears forappellant 2 — Theact was done forrevenge forthe actof complainant1(husbandof complainant2), who some years earlierstabbed and killed the brother of appellant 1 — Appellants are young persons, aged 22 and 24 respectively — A very favourablesocialinvestigation report wasnot placed by mistake before the tnalCourt—Had itbeensoplaced, thetrialCourtwouldhaveimposed more lenient sentences — Forthisreason andnotwithstanding thattheaforesaid sentences areratherlenient, thesentence on appellant 1 willbe reduced to -31/2years' impnsonment andthatonappellant2 to 18 months The factssufficiently appear in the judgmentofthe Court Appeal allowed Sentences ιeduced asaforesaid 15 Appealsagainstsentence. AppealsagainstsentencebyAnstotelisLazarouCharalambous and Anotherwho wereconvictedon the 10th December,1984 at the Assize Court of Limassol (Cnminal Case No. 22020/84)on one countoftheoffenceofattemptedmurdercontrarytosections 20 214(a)and 20 oftheCriminalCode,Cap. 154andweresentenced byHadjitsangaris,P.D.C.,Artemis,S.D.J, and Stavrimdes,D.J.to fiveyears'and threeyears'imprisonmentrespectively. A. Neodeous withS. Karatsis, forthe appellant. 205 Charalambous v. Republic
(1987)A, M. Angelides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment of the Court. The two appellants, who were the co-accused in criminal 5 caseNo.22020/84, wereconvicted,on 10December 1984,byan Assize Court in Limassol of the attempted murder of Pavlos Stylianou Mitasand hiswife,Anastassia Pavlou. The appellants were sentenced to five years' and three years' imprisonment, respectively, the trial Court having found that 10 appellant 1 hadmastermindedtheattempttokillthecomplainants and the appellant 2washisaccomplice. The complainants, likethe appellants, come from Natavillage, in the Paphos District, but on the material date, that is on 26 August 1984, they were residing at Episkopi village, in the 15 Limassol District. On that date, in the evening, the complainants were walking along a street in Episkopi village when the car of appellant 1, driven by him, in which appellant 2 was a passenger, knocked them down and injured both of them, more seriously the 20 complainant Mitasand lessseriously hiswife. Attheirtrialboth appellants pleaded not guiltybut, eventually, they have pursued these appeals only against the sentence imposed onthem and, thus,they no longer disclaim theirguilt. Unfortunately, some years earlier, complainant Mitas had 25 stabbedand killedduringa quarrel thebrother ofappellant 1and hadbeensentencedtofiveyears'imprisonment, anditseemsthat the appellants, who are relatives, attempted to kill the complainantsbywayof revenge. We cannotaccept in the least that the appellants were in any 30 wayjustifiedintryingtopunishontheirowncomplainantMitasfor thekillingofthebrotherofappellant 1inrespectofwhichhe had alreadybeenpunishedbytheState. hitfcuethattheappellantsareyoungpersons,aged twenty-two and twenty-four years respectively, and both of them are first 35 offenders, butthose mitigatingfactorswere dulyweighed by the ' trialCourt inassessing thesentences thatwere passed upon the appellants. 206 2C.L.R. Charalambou·v.Republic TriantafyWdeaP. Therewerenot,however,takenintoaccountbythetrialCourt, because by mistake they were not placed before it, two very favourable for the appellants social investigation reports which wereprepared aboutthem bytheDepartment ofSocialWelfare 5 Services. The contents of these reports, to which we need not refer in detail, are such that, in our opinion, the trial Courfwould have imposed more lenient sentences on the appellants had such reportsbeenplacedbefore itatthetime. 10 Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that the^sentences whichwerepassed ontheappellantsareratherlenient,wehave decidedtointerveneinfavouroftheappellantsandtoreducethe sentence passed upon appellant 1from fiveyearstothreeanda half yearsandthesentence passed upon appellant2from three 15 yearstoeighteenmonths. Intheresulttheseappealsareallowedaccordingly. Appealsallowed. Sentencesreduced. 207 »C