Kerala High Court
Kannan @ Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2024
2024:KER:88236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/30TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO.1026 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2014 OF THE SESSIONS
JUDGE, THRISSUR IN CRL.APPEAL NO.846/2010 CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT IN SC NO.286 OF 2009 OF THE II ADDITIONAL
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
KANNAN @ SUNIL
AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, POTTANVILAYIL HOUSE,
ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV.
SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN- SR.P.P
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:88236
2
Crl.R.P.No.1026 of 2014
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1026 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner along with 4 others were tried by the 2nd
Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur on a charge for
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 326, 354,
427 and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The petitioner and the 3rd accused were found guilty and
convicted. Others were acquitted. While the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC, the 3 rd
accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the
IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. Appeal was dismissed
as per judgment dated 07.01.2014. Hence the petitioner is in
revision before this Court.
2024:KER:88236
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. Prosecution was initiated based on the following
allegations:
The accused felt enmity towards PW2 - Raju as he asked
them to return the iron sheets they have hired. Due that enmity
at about 6.00 p.m on 28-07-08 the first and second accused
wrongfully restrained PW2 who was riding his scooter, at
Kunjathayi Junction. The second accused caught him by his
neck. The first accused cut him using a sword aiming at his neck.
When blocked, PW2 sustained injury on his left wrist including
fracture to bone. Accused numbers 1, 2, 3 and 5 thereafter
caused damages to his scooter resulting a loss of Rs. 5000/- to
PW2. The 3rd accused had fisted PW1-Ramani causing loosening
of her tooth and an injury on the lips. The 4th accused then beat
her on his face.
4. At the trial, PWs 1 to 14 were examined and Exts.P1
to P12 were marked. MOs 1 to 3 were identified. The defence
was one of total denial. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the
2024:KER:88236
accused. The trial court analysed the evidence in detail and
found the petitioner and accused No.3 alone guilty.
5. Several contradictions and inconsistencies occurred in
the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 were highlighted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. PW1 is the wife and PW2 is the
husband. Both of them sustained injuries in the incident. The
attack was initially on PW2 and when PW1 came and intervened,
she was also attacked. Besides them, PW3, an onlooker also
deposed regarding the occurrence. Of course he stated to have
reached on seeing a crowd and he did not see the inception of
the incident. But he stated that he saw the accused persons
attacking PW2 and also PW1. It is his version that the
petitioner-1st accused using a sword attacked PW2 repeatedly.
In narrating the incident, there have been inconsistencies interse
the evidence of those witnesses. The petitioner contended
before the trial court that, in the light of the inconsistencies,
much doubt has been created in the prosecution case and
therefore the petitioner could not be found guilty of the
offences. The said contentions were considered by the trial court
in the light of the decisions in Kasthurilal v. State of
2024:KER:88236
Hariyana [(1976) 3 SCC 570] and State of Kerala v.
Krishnankutty [1990(1) KLT SN 68 (Page 55)]. Yet another
contention raised before the trial court was that PW3 is a close
friend of PW2 and therefore he is an interested witness. When
there were inconsistencies in the evidence of PW3 while
juxtaposing it with the evidence of PW2, he could not be
believed.
6. Aforementioned contentions were not fully rejected by
the trial court. However insofar as the overt act of the petitioner
in inflicting injury to PW2 particularly, at his wrist as a result of a
slash using a sword the trial court held that the evidence was
cogent and consistent. That resulted in conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Holding
that the evidence let in by the prosecution concerning complicity
of accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 was unreliable, found them not guilty.
The allegation that the 3rd accused fisted at the face of PW1
resulting in the loosening of her tooth was also found true. That
resulted in the conviction of the 3rd accused.
7. Before the appellate court also similar contentions
were raised. Attack was essentially on the reliability of PWs 1, 2
2024:KER:88236
and 3. Contentions in that regard were repelled by the appellate
court after analysing the evidence in detail.
8. PW4 is the doctor in M.I hospital, where PW2 was
taken first for treatment. Ext.P2 is the wound certificate issued
by PW4. The reason for the injuries stated to PW4 is the attack
by known people. While PW2 was taken to PW10 at the Elite
Mission hospital the same reason was stated. Immediately after
the incident, PW1 reached the hospital and have taken
treatment. From the evidence of PWs 4 and 10, and the contents
of Ext.P2 and P6 which have been duly proved by the said
witnesses, the nature of the injury sustained by PW2 is
established. Injuries were extensive and serious. PW2 had a
fracture of first metacarpal and distal row of carpal bones of his
left wrist. Besides, he had several other injuries on his body.
When PW10 deposed in categorical terms before the court that
such injuries could be caused as a result of a blow using MO1
sword, that rendered support to the oral testimony of PW2 as
regards the cause of the said injury he sustained.
9. Of course, there are a few contradictions in the
evidence of PW2. Inconsistencies are more of exaggerations.
2024:KER:88236
However, regarding the cause of the aforesaid injury sustained
by PW2, the evidence is cogent, consistent and intact. PWs 1 and
3 also stated in similar terms concerning the reason for that
injury and that it was inflicted by the petitioner. A sword was
used to attack PW2 which was identified as MO1. Apparently,
MO1 is a dangerous weapon. When the courts below after
considering the aforementioned evidence in detail concurrently
had a finding that the petitioner voluntarily attacked PW2 using
MO1 and inflicted grievous hurt, this Court in the exercise of
powers under Section 401 of the Code cannot interfere with the
same. As regards motive also, the evidence tendered by the
prosecution is overwhelming and reliable.
10. 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
2024:KER:88236
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 Ramrao Chavan v.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123]; Kishan
Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165].
11. In view of the law laid down in the aforementioned
decisions, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the
petitioner for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. Hence
conviction is confirmed. Petitioner was sentenced by the courts
below to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Considering the nature of
the injuries inflicted and the way in which the attack was
perpetrated, petitioner does not deserve much leniency.
However, considering his age and the period elapsed after the
incident, I am of the view that the term of substantive sentence
can be reduced to one year.
Accordingly, the conviction is confirmed. The petitioner is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.25000/- (Rupees Twenty five
2024:KER:88236
thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two
months. If the fine amount is realised, Rs.20,000/- out of the
same shall be paid as compensation to PW2-the injured.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
PV
