Kerala High Court
Giridharan vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No.109/2013
2025:KER:50576
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 109 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2012 IN Crl.A NO.128 OF
2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.02.2006 IN CC NO.94 OF 2004
OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 & 2/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2:
1 GIRIDHARAN
S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR,
MANIYOOR AMSOM, VESALA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 PRABHAKARAN
S/O.KORAN, AGED 51 YEARS, COOLIE, MANIYOOR AMSOM,
VASALA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAKKARAKKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ N.R-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.109/2013
2025:KER:50576
:2:
O R D E R
The revision petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 94 of 2004 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery (for short, the trial court). They along with accused Nos. 3 to 7 faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. The accused are admittedly sympathizers of CPM and the defacto complainant/injured is a Congress worker. The prosecution case in short is that, on 10/05/2004, at 09.30 a.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 7, on account of their political rivalry towards PW1, formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons at the public pathway at Chundayilmoola in Vesala Desom, Maniyoor Amson and in furtherance of the common object of the assembly, wrongfully restrained and assaulted him on his face and chest with hands and MO1 stone.
3. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. MO1 was identified. After trial, the trial court found accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 341, 323 and 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC, accused No.2 under Sections 143, 148, 341 and 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC, accused Nos.3 to 7 under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323 r/w 149 of IPC and they were convicted for the said Crl.R.P.No.109/2013 2025:KER:50576 :3: offences. Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 143 r/w Section 149 of IPC, two years each under Sections 148 and 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC, one year under Section 323 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also to pay a fine of `500/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one week under Section 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Accused No.2 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 143 r/w Section 149 of IPC, two years each under Sections 148 and 324 r/w Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of `500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week under Section 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Accused Nos.3 to 7 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 143 r/w Section 149 of IPC, one year each under Sections 147 and 323 r/w Section 149 of IPC and to pay a fine of `500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week each under Section 341 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
4. All the accused challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the Sessions Court, Thalassery (for short, the appellate court) in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2006. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence of accused Nos.3 to 7 and they were acquitted. The Sessions Court also set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 143 and 148 of IPC. The conviction of accused No.1 under Sections 323, 324 and Crl.R.P.No.109/2013 2025:KER:50576 :4: 341 was confirmed. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and also to pay a fine of `500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. The conviction of the accused No.2 under Sections 324 and 341 was confirmed. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. This revision petition has been filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.
5. I have heard Sri. M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the evidence of PWs1 and 2 are contradictory to each other and ought not have been relied on by the trial court as well as the appellate court to convict the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that PW2 is a sympathizer of Congress and hence he is an interested witness. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence on record to show the size and nature of the stone used for the commission of the offence and hence the offence under Section 324 Crl.R.P.No.109/2013 2025:KER:50576 :5: will not be attracted. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court and the appellate court and argued that necessary ingredients of Sections 324 and 341 of IPC had been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs1, 2 and 3 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 is the injured. PW2 is the occurrence witness. PW3 is the Doctor who treated PW1. PW1 deposed that while he was returning from the polling booth after casting his vote, accused Nos.1 to 7 unlawfully intercepted, restrained and assaulted him. He further deposed that when he fell down, the petitioners hit him with MO1 stone. He also deposed that on hearing his cry, people of the locality came to the spot and the assailants left the spot. PW2 deposed in tune with the evidence given by PW1. He deposed that he saw the accused especially the petitioners attacking PW1. PW1 and PW2 identified the accused, particularly the petitioners as well as MO1 weapon used for the commission of the offence. Both of them deposed about the manner in which the petitioners attacked PW1 and the parts of the body where the injuries were inflicted. Even though PWs1 and 2 were cross-examined in length, nothing tangible could be extracted to discredit their testimony. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 gets corroboration from the medical evidence. PW3 is the Doctor who Crl.R.P.No.109/2013 2025:KER:50576 :6: treated PW1. Ext.P2 wound certificate was marked through him. The evidence of PW3 would show that immediately after the incident, PW1 was treated by him. Ext.P2 wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW3 would show that PW1 had sustained injury in the incident.
8. The trial court as well as the appellate court on appreciation of evidence found that the prosecution evidence described above is sufficient to establish that the petitioners assaulted PW1 with MO1. It is settled that the jurisdiction of the High court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence. I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court as well as the appellate court that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners had assaulted PW1 with MO1 stone.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no evidence to show that MO1 stone is an instrument which is likely to cause death and hence the conviction of the petitioners under Section 324 cannot be sustained. I find some force in the said argument.
10. To attract Section 324 of IPC, the accused must have intentionally caused hurt to another person and the said hurt must be inflicted by one of the specified categories of instruments or means outlined in the Section. The instruments specified in the Section Crl.R.P.No.109/2013 2025:KER:50576 :7: consist of two categories. First category mentions instruments for shooting, stabbing or cutting and the second category mentions any instrument that, when used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. In this case, the instrument is a stone which was identified as MO1. In every case, a stone need not constitute a dangerous weapon. It would depend upon the facts of each case. The stone may fall under Section 324 of IPC if it is of such a nature as to be likely to cause the death of a person when used as a weapon of offence. In such a case, the stone used for the commission of the offence by its very nature should be such that one could reasonably predict that by its use as a weapon of offence, death would be probable. Thus, the stone may qualify as a dangerous weapon depending on its nature, size, sharpness or its potential to cause death of a person ( Kumaran v. State of Kerala 2025 KHC OnLine 704). As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no evidence in this case to prove the nature, size and sharpness of MO1 stone. Ext.P3 mahazar is also silent about the same. None of the witnesses spoke about the nature and details of the stone. MO1 stone was not shown to the Doctor also. In the judgment of the appellate court, there is a finding that MO1 stone was not recovered at the instance of PW1 or PW2. There is no evidence to show that MO1 stone has the potential to cause the death of a person. PWs1, 2 or 3 did not speak so. In short, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove that MO1 stone Crl.R.P.No.109/2013 2025:KER:50576 :8: qualifies the expression 'any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death' found in Section 324 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 324 of IPC cannot be sustained. However there is evidence to show that the petitioners voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. Hence, the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is liable to be convicted under Section 323 of IPC. Section 222(2) of Cr.P.C allows conviction of an accused for minor offences even if there is no specific charge for it as long as the evidence supports it. Section 323 of IPC is a minor offence compared to Section 324 of IPC.
11. What remains is the sentence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence may be reduced till the rising of the court. The evidence of PW3 coupled with Ext.P2 wound certificate would show that the injury sustained by PW1 is minor in nature. PW3 in cross examination has admitted that the contusions and abrasions mentioned in the wound certificate are negligible in nature. The incident occurred due to the political rivalry. The petitioners have been undergoing the trial of prosecution for the last nineteen years.
12. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the substantive sentence for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC can be confined till rising of the court. However, the petitioners should be ordered to pay adequate compensation to PW1. Crl.R.P.No.109/2013
2025:KER:50576 :9:
13. In the light of the above discussion, the conviction of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 324 of IPC is set aside. They are convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC. They are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. They are also sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and to pay a compensation of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each to PW1, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each. The substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court shall run concurrently. The petitioners shall appear before the trial court within one month from today to receive the imprisonment till the rising of court and to deposit the compensation.
Crl. Revision Petition is allowed in part as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp