Kerala High Court
V.P.Gireeshan vs The State Of Kerala on 5 November, 2024
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1126 OF 2017 1
2024:KER:82520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1126 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRA NO.337 OF
2009 OF SESSIONS COURT - II, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.252 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,MATTANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
V.P.GIREESHAN
S/O.SREEDHARAN, COOLIE, KEEZHALLUR.
BY ADV SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
RESPONDENT/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
Smt.Maya.M.N.,P.P.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1126 OF 2017 2
2024:KER:82520
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
----------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1126 of 2017
--------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2024
ORDER
This Crl.Revision petition has been preferred by
the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.337/2009 on the files
of the Sessions Court, Thalassery against the judgment
dated 14.07.2017, confirming the judgment of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur in
C.C.No.252/2006 to the extent it found him guilty under
Section 324 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on
15.04.2006 at about 7.30 pm, the accused trespassed
into the property of PW1, his sister in law, attacked and
voluntarily caused hurt to her by pouring hot water on her
body and also by bitting her.
3. As per the final report, offences under
Section 326 and 447 IPC were included. The Trial Court
found him guilty under Sections 324 and 447 IPC.
However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him of the
offence under Section 447 IPC and sustained the
2024:KER:82520
conviction under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-.
4. Dissatisfied with the above finding of
the Appellate Court, he preferred this revision raising
various grounds.
5. Now the point that arise for
consideration in this revision petition is the following:
Whether the impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge
sustaining the conviction and sentence under Section
324 IPC against the revision petitioner is liable to be
interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised in
the revision petition?
6. Heard Adv.Phijo Pradeesh Philip, learned
Counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.M.N.Maya,
learned Public Prosecutor.
7. One of the contentions raised by the
learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that evidence
of PW1 and PW2 are contradictory to each other when
compared to the FI Statement. Further it was argued that
the evidence given by PW1 during the cross examination
is contradictory to what was given in the chief
2024:KER:82520
examination. Therefore, he prayed for acquitting the
accused by allowing the revision petition.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public
Prosecutor would argue that there is no grounds to
disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and therefore,
she prays for sustaining the conviction.
9. The evidence given by PW1 during the
chief examination is that while she was boiling water for
preparing tea, the accused came there, quarelled with her
and poured boiling water on her face, hand and leg. When
she fell down, the accused bit on her right hand. Further
according to her, the accused beat her using chappal. As
argued by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner,
in the FI statement there is no allegation that the accused
beat her using chappal. Therefore, it is a material
omission in the evidence of PW1.
10. The version given by the PW1 during the
chief examination is that while she was standing, the
accused poured boiling water on her face, hand and leg.
However, during the cross examination, it is revealed that
there was wordly quarrel between herself and the
accused and it was followed by a scuffle which lasted for
2024:KER:82520
about five minutes. She admitted that during the scuffle
she fell down. She further admitted that she sustained
burn after she fell down. In this context it is to be noted
that there is no separate kitchen in her small shed and
she used to prepare food outside the shed. During the
cross examination, she even admitted to the extend that
during the scuffle she fell down just half meter near to the
stove.
11. In this context, it is to be noted that,
PW6, the Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,
Koothuparamba who examined PW1 on 16.4.2004 at 9.20
p.m. noticed burn on her left cheek, forehead and right
arm. There was no burn on her leg. From the evidence of
PW1, it is revealed that on the very same day at 10 p.m.
she returned from the hospital. The prosecution has not
adduced any evidence to show that PW1 has undergone
any further treatment in that respect. Therefore, it is to be
presumed that the burn injury sustained by PW1 is minor
in nature.
12. The manner in which PW1 sustained
burn injuries on her body, as deposed by her during Chief
Examination is entirely different from that revealed
2024:KER:82520
during the cross examination. Since she admitted that
there was a scuffle, which lasted for about five minutes
and thereafter she fell down on the floor near the stove,
the possibility of hot water falling on her body by accident
could not be ruled out. In this context it is also to be
noted that at first she told the police that she has no
complaint and she returned home. She deposed that after
she returned home, police came to her residence and at
time she gave the FI statement. However, from Ext.P1 FI
statement it can be seen that it was recorded while she
was in the hospital.
13. However, the fact remains that during
the course of incident, the accused bit PW1. The
contention taken by the revision petitioner is that during
the scuffle, in order to escape from the clutches of PW1,
he bit her. In the available evidence there is nothing to
show that during the scuffle the revision petitioner was
put to any such situation wherein he was in the clutches
of PW1. Therefore, the explanation given by the revision
petitioner for inflicting bite injury on the hand of PW1
cannot be accepted. The incident occurred at the
premises of the house of PW1, who is the sister in law of
2024:KER:82520
the revision petitioner and the incident occurred as he
went to the premises of the shed in which she was
residing with her family. Since the justification given by
the revision petitioner for biting PW1 cannot be
accepted, it is to be held that the above act of the
revision petitioner amounts to voluntarily causing hurt to
PW1, which is an offence punishable under Section 323
of the IPC.
14. The punishment provides for the offence
under Section 323 IPC is imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Considering the fact that the revision petitioner is the
brother in law of PW1 and they are residing in the adjacent
houses in the same compound and the incident occurred
after a wordly altercation and scuffle, I hold that
substantive sentence of imprisonment is not required in
this case. Further, I hold that a fine of Rs.1,000/- will be
sufficient punishment.
15. In the result, this revision petition is
allowed in part as follows:
The conviction and sentence under Section 324
2024:KER:82520
IPC is set aside and modified to Section 323 IPC. The
revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
under section 323 IPC. He shall remit the fine amount of
Rs.1,000/- before the trial court, within a period of one
month from today. In case of default, he shall undergo
simple imprisonment for 15 days.
sd/
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
JUDGE
jm/
