Kerala High Court
Ashraf vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.445 of 2021
1
2025:KER:62481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 445 OF 2021
CRIME NO.62/2018 OF Kalikavu Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.302 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, MANJERI
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 ASHRAF
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,
ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI,VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABDUKUTTY,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,
ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI,VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 HAMZAKUTTY,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,
ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI,VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4 RAZAK,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,
ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI,VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.445 of 2021
2
2025:KER:62481
5 UNMERKUTTY,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED HAJI (LATE), ACHUTHODIKA HOUSE,
ANCHACHAVIDI, KARUTHENI,VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.M.ANUROOP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 ISUDHEEN,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O KUNJIMOHAMMED, MAVUNGAL HOUSE,KARUTHENI,
VELLAYUR, KALIKAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT,PIN-676525.
3 REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER
KOZHIKODE, ERNHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673006 (ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER
DATED 23.04.2024 IN CRL.M.A.1/24)
BY ADV.
SRI.K.RAKESH
SR PP, SRI. HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.445 of 2021
3
2025:KER:62481
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.445 of 2021
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025
ORDER
Revision Petitioners are the accused in S.C.
No.302/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-
II, Manjeri which arises from Crime No.62/2018 of
Kalikavu Police Station, Malappuram. The above case is
charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 304 r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case is that, on
28.06.2018 at about 12.45 PM while CW1, who is the son
of the deceased, was coming to his house with an Auto
Rickshaw, it was seen that a car in which a person who
had come to the house of the accused, parked in the way
to the house of CW1. When CW1 asked the driver of the
2025:KER:62481
above car to remove the car from there, due to previous
enmity towards CW1, the accused beat CW1. When
Kunjimuhammed, who is the father of CW1, intervened,
the 1st accused wrongfully restrained said Kunjimuhammed
and beat him with hand. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 hit said
Kunjimuhammed on his chest and stomach with hands and
the said Kunjimuhammed fell down. Thereafter, accused
No.4 kicked said Kunjimuhammed on his stomach. Said
Kunjumuhammed sustained injuries. The said
Kunjimuhammed felt discomfort when reached in the
house, immediately he was taken to MES Hospital,
Perinthalmanna and he succumbed to the injuries on
30.06.2018 while undergoing treatment in the above
hospital. Thus accused No.1 is alleged to have committed
the offences punishable u/ss. 341 and 323 IPC and
accused Nos. 2 to 5 are alleged to have committed the
offences punishable u/ss. 341, 323, 304 г/w 34 IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
2025:KER:62481
the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also
heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that,
even if the entire allegations are accepted in toto, the
offence under Section 304 IPC is not made out. The
counsel takes me through the postmortem report and the
prosecution case itself. The counsel submitted that the
deceased died because of heart decease. There is no case
to the prosecution that the petitioners were aware that the
deceased was having heart decease, and thereafter
attacked him. In such circumstances, Section 304 IPC is
not made out is the contention.
5. The Public Prosecutor and the counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that these
contentions were raised before the trial court, and
thereafter the trial court dismissed the discharge petition.
6. This Court considered the contentions of
2025:KER:62481
the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners filed
an application for discharge. As per the impugned order,
the same was dismissed. This Court perused the same.
The admitted prosecution case as narrated in the final
report is extracted hereunder:
"Charge U/s 341, 323, 304 r/w 34 IPC
28.06.2018 തതിയ്യതതി ഉച്ചകക്ക് 12.45 മണതികക്ക് വവെള്ളയൂർ
അഅംശഅം കറുതത്തേനതി എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തേക്ക് കതിഴക്കു പടതിഞഞ്ഞാറഞ്ഞായതി തപഞ്ഞാകുന്ന
കഞ്ഞാളതികഞ്ഞാവെക്ക്- വെണ്ടൂർ പബതികക്ക് തറഞ്ഞാഡതിവന്റെ വതതക വപഞ്ഞാളതിയതിവല ടഞ്ഞാർ
എന്റെതിൽ നതിനഅം സുമഞ്ഞാർ 5 മമീറ്റർ വതകക്ക് മഞ്ഞാറതിയഅം 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതിയഅം
കുടഅംബവഅം തഞ്ഞാമസതിക്കുന്ന വെമീടതിതലക്കുഅം മറ്റക്ക് ആളുകളുവട വെമീടതിതലക്കുഅം
തപഞ്ഞാകുന്നതതിനുള്ള സുമഞ്ഞാർ 2.5 മമീറ്റർ വെമീതതിയള്ള മണക്ക് തറഞ്ഞാഡതിവന്റെ കതിഴതക
വപഞ്ഞാളതിയതിൽ സ്ഥതി തതി വചെയ്യുന്ന ഇലകതികക്ക് തപഞ്ഞാസതിൽ നതിനഅം സുമഞ്ഞാർ
മമീറ്റർ പടതിഞഞ്ഞാറുമഞ്ഞാറതിയഅം പബതികക്ക് തറഞ്ഞാഡതിവന്റെ വതതക വപഞ്ഞാളതിയതിൽ
സ്ഥതിതതി വചെയ്യുന്ന വപഞ്ഞാതടങ്ങൽ മുഹമ്മദക്ക് എന്നയഞ്ഞാളുഅം കുടഅംബവഅം
തഞ്ഞാമസതിക്കുന്ന പുരയതിടത്തേതിൻവറ വെടക്കു കതിഴതക മൂലയതിൽ നതിനഅം
സുമഞ്ഞാർ 1 മമീറ്റർ കതിഴക്കു മഞ്ഞാറതിയള്ള തമപ്പടതി മണക്ക് തറഞ്ഞാഡതിവന്റെ വെടതക
അറ്റത്തേക്ക് വെച്ചക്ക് 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതിയവട വെമീടതിതലക്കുഅം മറ്റുമുള്ള വപഞ്ഞാതു വെഴതിയതിൽ
തടസഅം സൃഷതിച്ചു വകഞ്ഞാണക്ക് പ്രതതികളുവട വെമീടതിതലകക്ക് വെതിരുന വെന്ന ഒരഞ്ഞാൾ
നതിർത്തേതിയതിട കഞ്ഞാർ ആ സമയഅം അതുവെഴതി ഓതടഞ്ഞാറതികയമഞ്ഞായതി വെന്ന
1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതി മഞ്ഞാറ്റഞ്ഞാൻ പറഞതതിലഅം മുൻപക്ക്, പ്രതതികളുഅം 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം
സഞ്ഞാകതിയവട അയൽവെഞ്ഞാസതിയഞ്ഞായ 2-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതിയവട വെമീട്ടുകഞ്ഞാരുഅം
2025:KER:62481
തമ്മതിലണഞ്ഞായ വെഴകതിൽ 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതിയഅം മറ്റുഅം 2-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതിയവട
കുടഅംബത്തേതിവന്റെ പകഅം നതിന്നതതിലള്ള വെതിതരഞ്ഞാധഅം വെച്ചുഅം പ്രതതികൾ 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം
സഞ്ഞാകതിവയ അടതിക്കുന്നതക്ക് കണക്ക് തടയഞ്ഞാൻ വെന്ന 55 വെയസ്സുള്ള 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം
സഞ്ഞാകതിയവട ബഞ്ഞാപ്പ കുഞതിമുഹമ്മദതിവന 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം പ്രതതി പതിടതിച്ചു വവെച്ചക്ക്
കക വകഞ്ഞാണടതിച്ചുഅം കുഞ്ഞുമുഹമ്മദതിനക്ക് മരണഅം സഅംഭവെതികഞ്ഞാൻ
ഇടയഞ്ഞാകുന്ന വെതിധത്തേതിൽ 2, 3, 5 പ്രതതികൾ കുഞ്ഞുമുഹമ്മദതിവന കക
വകഞ്ഞാണക്ക് വനഞ്ചതഅം വെയറതിനുഅം കുത്തേതിയതതിൽ പരതിക്കുപറ്റതി നതിലത
വെമീണ കുഞ്ഞുമുഹമ്മദതിവന 4-ാഞ്ഞാഅം പ്രതതി വെയറ്റത്തേക്ക് ചെവെതിട്ടുകയഅം
വചെയ്തതതിൽ സഅംഭവെതശഷഅം അവെശനഞ്ഞായ 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം സഞ്ഞാകതിയവട ബഞ്ഞാപ്പ
കുഞ്ഞുമുഹമ്മദക്ക് ഉടവന തവന്ന വെമീടതിവലത്തേതി കുഴഞ്ഞുവെമീണക്ക്
വപരതിന്തൽമണ MES ആശുപതതിയതിൽ വകഞ്ഞാണ്ടു തപഞ്ഞായതി
ആശുപതതിയതിൽ ചെതികതിത്സയതിലതിരതിവക 30.06.2018 തതിയ്യതതി 05.25
മണതികക്ക് ചെതികതിത്സ ഫലതികഞ്ഞാവത മരണവപ്പടതിരതികയഞ്ഞാൽ 1-ാഞ്ഞാഅം പ്രതതി
341, 323 IPC വെകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകഞ്ഞാരവഅം 2, 3, 4, 5 എന്നമീ പ്രതതികൾ 341,
323, 304 r/w 34 IPC പ്രകഞ്ഞാരവഅം ശതികഞ്ഞാർഹമഞ്ഞായ കുറ്റഅം വചെയ്തതിരതിക്കുന
എന്നക്ക്."
7. Annexure A3 is the postmortem report.
The opinion as to the cause of death as per Annexure A3
postmortem report is extracted hereunder:
"OPINION AS TO THE CAUSE OF DEATH:
THE POSTMORTEM FINDINGS ARE
CONSISTENT WITH DEATH DUE TO COMPLICATIONS
2025:KER:62481
OF RAISED INTRACRANIAL TENSION AS A RESULT
OF ISCHEMIC INFARCT OF THE BRAIN FOLLOWING
MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION."
8. A perusal of the prosecution case and the
statements of the witnesses would not show that the
petitioners were aware that the deceased was suffering
from heart decease. Admittedly, the death was due to
complications of raised intracranial tension as a result of
ischemic infarct of the brain following myocardial
infarction. There is no case to the prosecution that any of
the witnesses stated that the petitioners attacked the
deceased knowing fully well that the deceased is having
any heart decease. This Court in Vijayan v. State of
Kerala [1991 KHC 105] considered this point in detail. It
will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above
judgment:
"4. There was no charge for murder.
Therefore, the question of intention of causing such
bodily injury, as the offender knows to be likely to
2025:KER:62481
cause death of the person on account of his peculiar
physical condition coming under the second clause of
S.300 of the Indian Penal Code, does not arise for
consideration. The charge was only that culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, defined in S.299
and made punishable under S.304, was committed.
Intention of causing death or such bodily injury, as is
likely to cause death, does not arise under the
circumstances of the case. Then the only question is
whether death was caused by doing an act with the
knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause
death or not. If the appellant was unaware of the fact
that the deceased was a heart patient (even if the
prosecution case that the deceased was a heart
patient is true), he cannot be fixed with the
knowledge that the push and fall are likely to cause
death. Therefore, conviction under S.304 of the
Indian Penal Code is out of question. Rightly, he was
not convicted for that offence. Conviction was only
under S.304-A."
9. The Division Bench of this Court in Baiju
v. State of Kerala [2017 (4) KHC 445] observed like this:
"19. When the medical evidence postulates
and suggests two or three possibilities for the cause
of death, the one which is exculpating has to be
2025:KER:62481
accepted giving benefit of doubt to the accused.
Further, in a case of homicide, the prosecution has to
rule out all other possibilities, than the one resting on
the guilt of accused as to the cause of death.
20. The question of accelerating or
precipitating death due to the effect of "trauma"
caused by injuries 1 to 5 or attributing to death by its
effect would be relevant, if the accused had the
knowledge that such "trauma" would be sufficient to
cause death or to accelerate or precipitate the same
on account of the ailment of the victim, who is a
hypertensive patient. In other words, it should be
known to the accused that the victim is a
hypertensive patient and their alleged act would
result in either causing death or accelerating or
precipitating the death, so as to bring the same
within the second limb of S.299 IPC for which the
knowledge to the accused, that the victim is a
hypertensive patient, is material. No evidence is
adduced by the prosecution on that behalf, though
they have a case that on an earlier occasion the
victim used to reside along with accused No. 1 for a
short period. Further, mere knowledge that the victim
is a hypertensive patient alone is not sufficient; and
what is material is that the knowledge that the
"trauma" created would likely by such act to cause
death, on account of ailment of the victim. The
matter will not come within the sweep of either the
2025:KER:62481
first limb or the second limb of S.299 IPC. Since
there is no use of dangerous weapon, the offence, if
any, proved would at the most come under the
purview of S.323 IPC."
10. Similarly in John Varghese v. Central
Bureau of Investigation [2009 (1) KHC 702], this Court
observed like this:
"9. S.304 of Indian Penal Code provides for
punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder as provided under S.299 of Indian Penal
Code. Under S.299, whoever causes death by doing
an act with the intention of causing death or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely
by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide. Therefore to attract an offence
under S.299, the accused should have caused the
death by doing an act either with the intention of
causing death or with the intention of causing such
bodily injury which is likely to cause death or by
doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death. If the injury which caused
the death was inflicted with the intention of causing
death, definitely S.299 is attracted. Similarly if the
bodily injury was inflicted with the intention of
2025:KER:62481
inflicting the said injury which is likely to cause
death, then also the offence comes under S.299.
Therefore in both the case intention to cause the
death or intention to cause such bodily injury which
is likely to cause death is necessary. In the third
case, only knowledge that the act is likely to cause
death is necessary. Therefore to attract an offence
under S.299, when there is no case that the accused
had an intention to cause death or the accused had
an intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, there should be knowledge on the part
of the accused that such injury is likely to cause
death of the deceased. There is no case that the
injuries found on the body of the deceased by
themselves, individually or cumulatively is likely to
cause death. Even if the injuries found on the body
of the deceased are not likely to cause death of an
ordinary human being, if the accused could be
imputed with the knowledge that deceased was
suffering from heart ailment and if such injury or
injuries are inflicted on that person, it is likely to
cause his death, then S.299 of Indian Penal Code
would definitely be attracted.
10. It is not disputed that the prosecution
has no case that any of the accused had an intention
to cause death of deceased Thangal Kunju. The
injuries found on the body of the deceased by
themselves are not likely to cause his death, if he
2025:KER:62481
was not suffering from any coronary heart ailment.
Therefore it cannot be said that those injuries were
inflicted on deceased Thangal Kunju with the
intention that those injuries are likely to cause
death. Therefore if a charge for the offence under
S.304 of Indian Penal Code is to be framed, there
should be material to satisfy that the accused had
knowledge that those injuries, if inflicted on the
deceased would cause his death. That knowledge
could be imputed only if prosecution has a case that
any of the accused was aware that deceased Thangal
Kunju was suffering from coronary heart disease. As
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for
revision petitioners, even according to the widow of
the deceased, family members were not aware of the
heart ailment. If so, such knowledge cannot be
imputed on any of the accused. If that be so, it
cannot be said that the injuries found on the body of
the deceased, even if were inflicted by any of the
accused in furtherance of their common intention,
were inflicted with the knowledge that they are likely
to cause his death. If so, S.299 of Indian Penal Code
is not attracted. If S.299 is not attracted, a charge
for the offence under S.304 of Indian Penal Code
cannot be framed."
11. Keeping in mind the above principles laid
2025:KER:62481
down in the above judgments, this Court perused the final
report once again, and also the statements relied on by
the prosecution. This Court also perused the postmortem
findings. I am of the considered opinion that the offence
under Section 304 IPC is not made out. But the
petitioners have to face trial for the offences under
Sections 341 & 323 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, the impugned
order is to be set aside, and the petitioners are to be
discharged for the offence under Section 304 IPC. The
trial court will forward the entire file to the jurisdictional
Magistrate court for trial and disposal.
Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed
in the following manner:
1. The order dated 08.07.2021 in Crl.M.P.
No.2795/2019 of the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Manjeri is set aside and the revision petitioners are
discharged for the offence under Section 304 IPC.
2. The Revision Petitioners have to face trial for the
2025:KER:62481
offences under Sections 341 & 323 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri will
forward the entire file to the jurisdictional
Magistrate court in accordance with the law,
because the offences under Sections 341 & 323
are triable by the Magistrate court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE
DM
