Kerala High Court
Lashitha vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2024
1
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.593 of 2019
2024:KER:85924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/24TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 593 OF 2019
CRIME NO.389/2014 OF THOTTILPALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2019 IN CRA NO.6 OF 2018 OF
THE COURT OF SESSIONS, KOZHIKODE, ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 30.11.2017 IN CC NO.1312 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, NADAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
LASHITHA
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O.SHAJI, RESIDING AT MAVULLAMOTTEMMAL HOUSE,
MARUTHONKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN- 673513.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHRI.SUMEEN S.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.
ADV.SRI.SANAL.P.RAJ-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.593 of 2019
2024:KER:85924
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J
-------------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev.Pet. No.593 of 2019
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.1313 of 2014 on
the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nadapuram.
The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. In the appeal, the said conviction was confirmed.
The petitioner challenges the said concurrent judgment of
conviction and sentence in this revision petition filed under
Section 397 read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
2. Injured and the petitioner are the neighbours. The
prosecution case was that at about 7.00 p.m. on 19.08.2014
while PW1, the injured, was returning home along the way in
front of the house of the petitioner, she was pelted with stones
by the petitioner causing injuries at her head and back. PW1 was
abused using filthy words and threatened to kill.
2024:KER:85924
3. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence,
comprising the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 8 and Exts.P1 to P5
held that the prosecution could not prove uttering obscene words
by the petitioner, threatening with death, and causing injuries
using a dangerous weapon to PW1 by the petitioner. However, it
was held that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond doubt
that PW1 was intimidated and inflicted injuries constituting
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(i) of the IPC.
The Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and concurred
with the findings of the trial court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Although the leaned counsel for the petitioner made
submissions and canvased for a position that when the offence
under Section 324 of the IPC was found not committed, in the
nature of the allegations, no conviction for the offence under
Section 323 of the IPC could not be had. Similarly, it is urged
that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was insufficient to
prove an offence of intimidation coming within the purview of
Section 503 of the IPC. The evidence was thoroughly analysed
2024:KER:85924
by the courts below and came to a conclusion that the petitioner
pelted stones at the head and back of PW1 and that resulted
pain and tenderness on her body. Of course, a stone was
produced before the court, but evidence was scarce to establish
that the same was the stone used by the petitioner. Having
considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in the light of the
materials on record, I find no reason to interfere with said
concurrent findings rendered by the courts below.
6. The power of revision under Section 401 of the Code is
not wide and exhaustive. The High Court in the exercise of the
powers of revision cannot re-appreciate evidence to come to a
different conclusion, but its consideration of the evidence is confined
to find out the legality, regularity and propriety of the order
impugned before it. When the findings rendered by the courts below
are well supported by evidence on record and cannot be said to be
perverse in any way, the High Court is not expected to interfere with
the concurrent findings by the courts below while exercising
revisional jurisdiction. [See: State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath
Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452; Sanjaysinh
2024:KER:85924
Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC
123; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165].
7. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, conviction of the petitioner is not liable to be interfered with
in regard to the sentence I am of the view that that interference is
required owing to the facts that much time was elapsed after the
incident, the parties are neighbours and they are women.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part.
Conviction is confirmed. Sentence is modified. The petitioner is
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under
Section 323 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
Section 506(i) of the IPC. If the fine amounts are not paid, the
petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
week and one month respectively. In the event of realization of
fine, Rs.5,000/- out of the same shall be paid as compensation
to PW1, the injured.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
SMF
