Kerala High Court
Raghu vs Station House Officer on 4 April, 2025
2025:KER:29459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 752 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
24.02.2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2009 OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 21.04.2009 IN CC NO.667 OF 2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1,3,5,6 & 7:
1 RAGHU,AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.KOCHAPPAN,KUNNATHULLA HOUSE,
KURIYACHIRA,OLLUR VILLAGE.
2 BAIJU,AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.VELAYUDHAN,PARAYIL HOUSE,
KURIACHIRA,OLLUR VILLAGE.
3 JAFAR @ PALLAN JAFAR,AGED 34 YEARS,S/O. SULAIMAN,
PARAKADAVILPUTHENVEEDU, KURIACHIRA, OLLUR VILLAGE.
4 JIMSON @ GULIKAN,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.JOSE,
EDAYATTUKULAM,POP NAGAR,MULAYAM.
5 RAMADAS @ KUTTIKADIYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN,
PUTHANVEEDU,POOCHETTY,NADATHARA.
BY ADV SRI.C.A.ANOOP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680306.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
\
SRI. RANJIT GEORGE-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:29459
CRL.RP. No.752 of 2013 :2 :
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
===========================
CRL.RP. No.752 of 2013
============================
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025
ORDER
Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.305/2009,
accused nos. 1,3,5,6 and 7 preferred this criminal revision
petition. The offences alleged against the revision
petitioners/accused Nos.1,3,5,6 and 7 are under Sections
143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w.149 of the erstwhile Indian Penal
Code.
2. The trial court and the appellate court convicted
and sentenced the accused Nos.1,3,5,6 and 7 and imposed
substantive sentence.
3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on
26.12.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. at the road to Siva Temple,
the Accused Nos.1,3,5 to 7 formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object
to commit crime, wrongfully restrained PW1. The 5 th accused
2025:KER:29459
inflicted injuries on the neck of PW1 by knife, 1 st accused hit
him on the head with a stone, the remaining accused persons
also beat PW1 thereby the 1st accused committed the
aforesaid offences.
4. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 6 were examined
and Exts.P1 to 3 were marked and MO.1 was identified.
Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313(1)
(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The trial court after a full fledged trial, convicted
and sentenced the accused Nos. 1,3,5 to 7, as follows:
"Accused found guilty and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for 1 month for offence U/s.
143, simple imprisonment for 3 months for
offence U/s.147, Simple imprisonment for 3
months for offence U/s.148 r/w 149 IPC, simple
imprisonment for 3 months for offence U/s.323,
rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for offence
U/s.324 r/w 149 IPC. Sentences shall run
concurrently."
6. Impugning the judgment of the learned Magistrate,
the accused Nos.1,3,5 to 7 preferred Crl.Appeal No.305/2009.
The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, as follows:-
2025:KER:29459
"2.Crl.Appeal No.305/09 is allowed in part.
3. Conviction of A1 to A3, A5 to A7 for the offence
U/s.148 r/w 149 IPC and sentence imposed on
them for the said offence are set aside.
4. Conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class Court No.III, Thrissur in
C.C.No.667/03 on A1 to A3, A5 to A7
(appellants in Crl.A.305/09) for the offences
U/s.143,147,323,324 r/w.149 IPC are
confirmed.
5. Conviction and sentence for the offence
U/s.148 IPC is confined to A1 and A5. Sentence
imposed on them for the said offence is
confirmed."
7. Impugning the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge in Crl.Appeal No.305/2009, accused Nos.1,3,5,6 and 7
preferred this revision petition.
8. Adv.Ranjit George, the learned Public Prosecutor
supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Both
the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the
evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion. No
interference from this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of
the Cr.P.C is warranted in this matter.
9. Per contra, Adv.C.A.Anoop, learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the
2025:KER:29459
impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is
unsustainable. Both the trial court and the appellate court
overlooked the serious illegalities, irregularities and
improprieties. Therefore, the intervention of this Court in this
matter is absolutely essential.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners
contended that the doctor was not examined and wound
certificate was marked through the Investigating Officer.
11. I have heard the rival submissions of the counsel
for the parties.
12. At the time of final hearing of this criminal
revision petition, the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioners/accused Nos.1,3,5 to 7 would submit that,
even though he has urged several grounds in the revision
memorandum, he would prefer to argue the matter only on
leniency.
13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners
submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court and
confirmed by the appellate court is too harsh and excessive,
considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the
2025:KER:29459
circumstances in which it was committed.
14. Considering the nature of offence, facts and
circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the
substantive sentence awarded in this case can be modified
and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
However, since the substantive sentence is modified and
reduced, I am of the considered view that, compensation can
be ordered to be paid by the accused Nos.1,3,5 to 7 to the
person who has suffered injury/loss by reason of the act of
the accused under section 395(3) and 395(4) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
In the result,
(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(b) The substantive sentence imposed in this
matter is modified and reduced to
imprisonment till the rising of the court.
(c) The revision petitioners/accused Nos.1,3,5.6 &
7 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/-
[Rupees Three Thousand only] each to the
victim/PW1 under Section 395(3) of the
2025:KER:29459
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(d) The revision petitioner shall surrender before
the trial court within 45 days from the date of
this order to receive the sentence.
(e) It is made clear that the revision petitioner shall
pay the compensation to the victim within 45
days from the date of this order.
(f) The court below shall execute the order in the
modified manner.
Sd/-
K.V.JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
nk
