Santhosh vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 12311 Ker

Kerala High Court

Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2025

                                               2025:KER:96395

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947

                  CRL.REV.PET NO.324 OF 2017

      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.01.2017 IN Crl.A
    NO.445 OF 2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
                       NORTH PARAVUR
      ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2015 IN
     SC NO.393 OF 2014 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB
            COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, PERUMBAVOOR

REVISION PETITIONER:

          SANTHOSH​
          AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, THOTTANKARA HOUSE,
          KAIPPATTOOR KARA, KALADY VILLAGE.

          BY ADV.
          SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

RESPONDENT:

          STATE OF KERALA​
          REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          KALADY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.

          BY ADV.
          SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                        2025:KER:96395
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.324 of 2017

                                   -2-




                         G. GIRISH, J.
                 --------------------------------
                 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.324 of 2017
             -----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 15th day of December, 2025

                                ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Assistant Sessions Court,

Perumbavoor, and the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur,

convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of the

offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC, are under challenge in

this revision petition filed by the accused in the said case.

2.​ The prosecution case is that on 24.08.2013, at about

8.45 pm, the petitioner / accused physically assaulted PW2 with an

iron pipe fitted with a tile cutting blade on its tip portion and caused

grievous hurt of fracture of skull and right leg. The case has been

registered by the Kalady Police on the basis of the First Information

Statement given by PW1, who was said to be there along with PW2,

at the time when the petitioner / accused mounted physical assault

upon PW2. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector

of Police, Kalady, laid the Final Report alleging the commission of the 2025:KER:96395

offences under Sections 326, 307 and 506(ii) IPC against the

petitioner.

3.​ In the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge,

Perumbavoor, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to

PW14, and marked 17 documents as Exts.P1 to P17. Six material

objects were identified as MO1 to MO6. From the part of the

accused, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and one

document was marked as Ext.D1 in support of his case that PW2 got

injured in an accident, and not due to the physical assault attributed

against him. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after an

evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, found that the prosecution had

successfully established the commission of the offences under

Sections 307 and 326 IPC by the petitioner. Accordingly, the

petitioner was convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment

for four years and fine Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 307

IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.15,000/-

for the offence under Section 326 IPC. Appropriate default sentence 2025:KER:96395

terms were also provided for non-payment of fine. It was further

directed that the substantive sentence will run concurrently.

4.​ In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

North Paravoor, embarked upon a re-appraisal of the whole evidence

and concurred with the findings of the learned Assistant Sessions

Judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the

conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by

the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner

is here with this revision.

5.​ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6.​ The Trial Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence

tendered by PW1 and PW2 to arrive at the finding that the petitioner

has inflicted grievous hurt upon the defacto complainant (PW2) by

hitting upon his head and limbs with an iron pipe fitted with a tile

cutting blade on the tip portion of it. The evidence tendered by PW3,

who took the injured to the hospital, was also relied on to a certain

extent for arriving at the finding that the petitioner committed the 2025:KER:96395

aforesaid offences. Another witness, which the prosecution

examined to establish the occurrence, was PW10. But he turned

hostile to the prosecution and did not state before the Trial Court in

tune with the prosecution version.

7.​ The reliance placed by the courts below upon the

prosecution evidence has been strongly assailed on multiple

grounds. It is stated that the collection of samples and the analysis

done at the Forensic Science Laboratory, in respect of MO2 to MO6,

which are the wearing apparel of PW2, hair collected from the scene

of crime and the soil, which was said to be blood stained, were

faulty. The challenge in the above regard has been rightly repelled

by the courts below by holding that the analysis at the Forensic

Science Laboratory was solely for the purpose of deciding whether

the stains found in those items were human blood or not. It cannot

be said that the observation of the courts below in the above regard

is erroneous or improper. It is pertinent to note that the present case

is one in which there is clinching ocular evidence of an eye witness

to establish the crime. The victim (PW2) as well as PW1 testified 2025:KER:96395

before the Trial Court in unequivocal terms about the physical

assault mounted by the petitioner. Since, the prosecution did not rely

on circumstantial evidence to establish the crime, the challenge

against the collection of samples and analysis at the FSL are not

having any significance.

8.​ The contention of the petitioner against the reliability of

the recovery of MO1, which is the weapon of the offence, is also

rightly found against him by the courts below. The learned Assistant

Sessions Judge has observed in Paragraph 35 of the impugned

judgment by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Chand [AIR (2013) SC

3349], that the recovery of an incriminating article from a place

which is open and accessible to others, alone cannot vitiate such

recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The decisions

rendered by this Court in Suni @ Sudheer v. State of Kerala

[2012 (1) KLJ 586], Mathew v. State of Kerala [1990 (2) KLT

564] and Sadanandan v. State of Kerala [ILR 1992 (2) Kerala

516] are also quoted in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court to 2025:KER:96395

conclude that there is absolutely no reason to discard the evidence

adduced by the prosecution regarding the recovery of the weapon of

offence. The findings of the courts below in the above regard cannot

be termed as illegal, erroneous or improper to invoke the powers of

revision to unsettle the same. The courts below have also rightly

declined to accept the evidence tendered by the accused through

DW1 to DW3 in support of his contention that PW2 sustained the

injuries in an accident while travelling as a pillion rider to a person

by name 'Suji' in a motor bike. The appreciation of evidence on the

above aspect also cannot be faulted. On going through the case

records as well as the reasoning of the courts below in the impugned

judgments, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioner for

the commission of offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC is not

liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers of this

Court.

9.​ On the point of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court,

which has been upheld by the Appellate Court, it appears that the 2025:KER:96395

tenure of Rigorous Imprisonment for four years is a little bit

excessive.

10.​ Having regard to the nature of the offences committed

by the petitioner and the gravity of the crime, I am of the view that

the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for four years imposed by

the courts below is liable to be reduced to a period of Rigorous

Imprisonment for two years, by retaining the fine portion as such.

Needless to say, the petitioner would be entitled to set off in respect

of the detention he had undergone at the pre-trial stage.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part as

follows :-

(i)​ The concurrent findings of the courts below,

convicting the petitioner for the commission of the

offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC, are hereby

upheld.

(ii)​ The sentence awarded by the courts below is

modified reducing the tenure of Rigorous Imprisonment 2025:KER:96395

to two years for the offence under Section 307 IPC, and

retaining the fine portion as such.

(iii)​ The directions of the Trial Court that the

substantive sentence shall run concurrently and that the

period of detention already undergone by the petitioner /

accused to be set off, are retained as such.

The Registry shall forward a copy of this order, along with the

relevant case records, to the Trial Court for enforcement of the

sentence in accordance with this order.

         ​       ​    ​     ​    ​     ​        ​       Sd/-
                                                    G. GIRISH
                                                      JUDGE
ded/15.12.2025