Kerala High Court
Sahadevan vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2025
CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007
1
2025:KER:35061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1088 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2007 IN SC NO.26 OF 2007 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SAHADEVAN
YEARS, RAJA HOUSE, ASRAMAM SCHOOL, KURICHY,,
(ARIPATTUSERI HOUSE, POOVAM, CHANGANACHERRY).
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.S.MANU
SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR
SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHINGAVANAM POLICE, STATION,
NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SERVED ON THE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.05.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007
2
2025:KER:35061
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
============================
Crl.Appeal No. 1088 of 2007
==============================
Dated 22nd day of May, 2025
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in S.C. No. 26 of 2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track Court (Adhoc - II) Kottayam has come up with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, by the said court finding that he has committed offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 3 2025:KER:35061
3. The points arise for consideration are as follows:-
1.Whether the trial court went wrong in finding that the accused/appellant committed offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC?
2.If the verdict would require interference?
3.The order to be passed?
4. Tracing the genesis of the prosecution case, it is discernible that Crime No. 425 of 2005 of Chingavanam police station was registered, and on investigation, final report was filed on the allegation that the accused/appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 506(1) and 308 of IPC.
CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 4 2025:KER:35061
5. The prosecution case as extracted in paragraph No. 2 of the trial court judgment reads as follows:-
Both the accused and the defacto- complainant Sahadevan, were residing in "Raja Quarters"
near Ashramam School, Kurichy. Formerly, they were friends. Subsequently, the accused was opposed by the de facto complainant Sureshkumar for his activity of selling foreign liquor brought from Goa; as the sale was conducted from the front side of the house of Sureshkumar. The two houses of the accused and Sureshkumar are facing each other in the quarters. On 19.11.2005, Sureshkumar, who is running a toddy shop, came to his house for taking meals and was just opening the door of his house as there was none else in that house. When the accused, telling that he would not CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 5 2025:KER:35061 permit him to live, fisted on his back. Immediately, Sureshkumar left the place on his bike and stopped it near the gate of Raja Quarters and called his friend Shaji, who is running a bakery on the opposite side of the road. Shaji came, and to him, Sureshkumar was telling about the assault by the accused. At that time, the accused came from the backside of Sureshkumar, took a piece of mettle from the road side and hit on the backside of the head of Sureshkumar with it. Feeling giddiness, Sureshkumar was about to fall on the road, but he was supported by Shaji, who took him to Mandiram hospital first, and since the doctor was not available, from there to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 6 2025:KER:35061
6. On commission of this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for the offences punishable under Sections 506(1) and 308 of IPC, and recorded evidence. PWs 1 to 7 examined, Exts. P1 to P4 and MO1 stone were marked on the side of the prosection. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and provided an opportunity to the accused to adduce defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was adduced. The learned Sessions Judge, addressed the question as to whether the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 308 as well as 506(1) of IPC, and finally it was found that the accused did not commit offences under Sections 308 and 506(1) of IPC and found commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 7 2025:KER:35061 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
7. While challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant pointed out that only minor injury was sustained, as deposed by PW7- the Doctor in support of Ext.P4 wound certificate. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant also submitted that the trial court did not properly appreciate the evidence to find the commission of offence under Section 324 of the IPC. Therefore, the verdict would require interference.
8. Whereas, the learned public Prosecutor strongly supported the trial court verdict, relying on evidence of PWs 1 to 7, Exts.P1 to P4, and MO1.
CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 8 2025:KER:35061 Point No.1:-
9. Going through the judgment, it is noticeable that the trial court mainly given emphasis to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as well as PW7 and Ext.P4, and MO1 to find that the accused voluntarily caused hurt by use of a dangerous weapon to PW1. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, he deposed that he was beaten by the accused at 01.30 pm on the date of occurrence while he was standing at the veranda. The further version of PW1 is that the accused beaten him because he deposed sale of liquor from the said house. According to PW1, the accused came from behind and hit him twice on the backside of his head. He identified MO1 stone used by the accused to beat him. PW2 CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 9 2025:KER:35061 also supported the arrival of the accused as stated by PW1, though he did not speak much about the incident. PWs 2 and 3 also supported the version of PW1 and PW7 - the Doctor who issued Ext.P4 wound certificate. PW7 deposed that PW1 sustained lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm at the fronto occipital region and the injury corresponds to the evidence given by PWs1 to 3. On appreciation of the evidence, it could be seen that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and found that the accused guilty of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon, which is punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction does not require interference.
Point Nos. 2 & 3:-
10. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant sought CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 10 2025:KER:35061 leniency in the matter of sentence, pointing out the fact that the parties are close neighbours with a view to avoide jail sentence.
11. Section 324 of IPC provides imprisonment either description for a term which may extend three years, or with fine, or with both.
12. On perusal of the evidence given and in consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, I am of the view that the sentence can be modified to payment of fine to meet the ends of justice.
13. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The conviction imposed by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed is modified with direction to the accused/appellant to CRL.A NO.1088 OF 2007 11 2025:KER:35061 pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
14. If the fine is realized or paid, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. on getting his presence by issuing notice, and Rs.5,000/-
shall go to the State Exchequer.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial court for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE RMV