Kerala High Court
Raju vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No.3299/2005
1
2025:KER:61052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3299 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.07.2005 IN Crl.A NO.344
OF 1997 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.1997 IN CC NO.187 OF
1994 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
-II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJU, S/O HARIS,CHANALVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU,,
KURUVILAKATTUVILA, KALLIYOOR, KALLIYOOR DESOM &
VILLAGE.
BY ADV SHRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SMT.MAYA.M.N-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.3299/2005
2
2025:KER:61052
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.187/1994 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram (for short, the trial court). He faced trial for
the offence punishable under Section 419 of the IPC. The
prosecution allegation in short is as follows:
One Sri. Chellappan, Varuvila Veedu, Kalliyoor was working as a
cleaner in the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. He retired
from service about 14 years back from the date of registration of
the crime. He is now no more. The accused/petitioner with the
help of the said Chellappan, styling himself as Mr.
Thulaseedharan, son of the said Chellappan, knowingly
substituted himself for the said Thulaseedharan, secured
employment as Part Time Public Cleaner in the Corporation of
Thiruvananthpuram from 3.11.1980 onwards.
2. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 419 of the IPC and
he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 419
of the IPC. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence
before the II Additional Sessions court, Thiruvananthapuram (for
2025:KER:61052
short, the appellate court) in Crl.A.No.344/1997. The appellate
court confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence to
simple imprisonment for two months. This revision petition has
been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as
the appellate court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all
sufficient to constitute the ingredients of Section 419 of the IPC
and hence, the conviction cannot be sustained. The learned
counsel further submitted that the trial court as well as the
appellate court ignored the evidence given by PW5, the mother of
the accused that he is the son of Chellappan.
5. On a perusal of the evidence on record and the
judgments, I concur with the finding of the trial court as well as
the appellate court that there are sufficient documentary and oral
evidence to prove that the accused is the son of Haris and he
secured the part time job as Public Cleaner in
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation impersonating himself as
Thulaseedharan, son of Chellappan. The crucial evidence is that
of PW4. As stated already, the prosecution case is that the
2025:KER:61052
accused impersonated as the son of the deceased Chellappan,
namely Thulaseedharan and secured employment in
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The so called Thulaseedharan
has been examined as PW4. He is a Pastor. PW5 is the mother of
the accused. PW4 convincingly deposed that the accused is the
son of Haris born to PW5 and his name is Raju. His evidence
would further show that he is the son of the deceased Chellappan
in the wedlock with PW5. He also deposed that there is another
brother, PW3, working in the Corporation as a Public Cleaner. The
testimony of PW4 appears to be credible and trustworthy. Even
though he has been cross examined in length, nothing tangible
could be extracted from his testimony to discredit his version.
Even though PW5 turned hostile to the prosecution, she testified
in her cross examination by the prosecution that her first husband
was Haris and the deceased Chellappan became her husband after
the death of Haris. The trial court as well as the appellate court,
after evaluating the evidence of PW4 and PW5 found that their
evidence would prove that the accused is the son of Haris and not
the deceased Chellappan. I see no reason to take a different
view.
6. There are also documentary evidence to prove
that the accused is the son of Haris and not that of Chellappan.
2025:KER:61052
Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by PW13, the Head Master of the
school where the accused studied. In Ext.P6, the father's name of
the accused is shown as Haris. Thus, Ext.P6 coupled with the
evidence of PW13 would show that the name of the accused is
Raju and his father is Haris. Ext.P11 is the ration card and it
would show that the name of the accused is Raju and he is the
son of Haris. Thus, Exts.P6 and P11 would clearly prove that the
name of the accused is Raju and his father is Haris. Ext.P5 is the
identity card and Ext.P7 is the attendance register relating to the
accused which would show that the accused secured the job in the
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation styling himself as
Thulaseedharan. Exts.P7, P7(a), (b), (c) and (d) would prove that
the accused received salary from the Corporation styling himself
as Thulaseedharan. PW1 deposed that he is the neighbour of the
accused and the accused secured job in the Corporation styling
himself as Thulaseedharan. Thus, all the ingredients of Section
419 of IPC have been clearly attracted.
7. It is settled that the jurisdiction of the High
Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon
re-appreciation of evidence. Since there are concurrent findings of
the trial court as well as the appellate court, this Court would be
circumspect in invoking the revisional powers under Sections 397
2025:KER:61052
read with 401 of Cr.P.C. It is only if the decision rendered by the
trial court as well as the appellate court can be said to be either
perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke such
powers. I have carefully gone through the entire records,
evidence, proceedings and the judgments of the trial court as well
as the appellate court. I find no impropriety or illegality therein
warranting interference on the finding of conviction under the
exercise of revisional powers vested with this court. The sentence
imposed by the appellate court appears to be reasonable.
There is no merit in the criminal revision petition.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
