Kerala High Court
Shaji @ Chamban Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2025
2025:KER:16153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1088 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2012 IN Crl.A NO.582 OF 2010
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III),NORTH
PARAVUR
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.09.2010 IN CC NO.717 OF 2004 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHAJI @ CHAMBAN SHAJI, AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.AMBUJAKSHAN, KUZHIPPILLIL HOUSE, BEACH BHAGAM,
MUNAMBAM KARA, KUZHIPPILLY VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SRI.A.P.EBRAHIM
SRI.JAGAN GEORGE
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
SRI. SANAL.P.RAJ-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
22.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:16153
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1088 OF 2013
2
ORDER
Impugning the order of the learned Addl. District and
Sessions Judge(Adhoc-III), North Paravur in Crl.Appeal
No.582/2010, the sole accused preferred this criminal revision
petition. The offences alleged against the revision
petitioner/accused are under Sections 341, 324 and 427 of the
erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
2. The trial court and the appellate court convicted
and sentenced the accused and imposed substantive sentence and
fine.
3. The prosecution case is that, owing to previous
animosity towards PW1, on 08.04.2004 at about 4.30 p.m., the
accused wrongfully restrained PW1, while he was coming in a
Tampo Trax bearing registration No.KL-01 K/1670. Thereafter,
the revision petitioner/accused, with a piece of brick, hit on the
chest and threw that piece towards the windshield glass of the
vehicle of PW1. The glass was broken, and PW1 sustained a loss
to the tune of Rs. 3,700/-.
4. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 8 were examined
and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked and MOs.1 to 2 were identified.
2025:KER:16153
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1088 OF 2013
Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court, after a full
fledged trial, convicted the accused and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month under
Section 341 of IPC, sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a term of three months, and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in
default, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 324 of
IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a term of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/-, in
default simple imprisonment for two months under Section 427 of
IPC.
5. Impugning the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.582/2010. The
appellate court dismissed the appeal.
6. Impugning the judgment of the learned District
and Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No.582/2010, the accused
preferred this revision petition.
7. Adv. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor
supported the judgment of the learned District and Sessions
Judge. Both the trial court and the appellate court appreciated
the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion. No
2025:KER:16153
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1088 OF 2013
interference from this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the
Cr.P.C is warranted in this matter.
8. Per contra, Adv. Babu Karukapadath, learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the
impugned judgment of the learned District and 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.
9. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and
the counsel for the revision petitioner.
10. The contention of the revision petitioner is that,
the trial court ought not to have convicted the accused on the
basis of the interested testimony of PW1. I do not find much force
in the argument advanced by the learned counsel. It is trite law
that the quality of the evidence, not the quantity of evidence, is
required to be looked into while convicting an accused. The
learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that
there were no serious injuries on the chest of PW1. There was
only one tenderness on the shoulder of PW1, which could have
been caused by a fall.
2025:KER:16153
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1088 OF 2013
11. The trial court and the appellate court correctly
appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper
conclusion. The appreciation of evidence at this stage is
impermissible. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned
counsel for revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the conviction in this matter.
12. However the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submitted that leniency may be shown with regard to
the sentence imposed in this case. The learned counsel for the
revision petitioner 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 circumstances in which it was committed.
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.
In the result,
(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed
in part.
(b) The substantive sentence imposed under
various sections in this matter is modified and reduced to
imprisonment till rising of the court.
2025:KER:16153
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1088 OF 2013
(c) The fine imposed and the default
sentence are maintained.
(d) The revision petitioner shall surrender
before the trial court within 45 days from the date of this
order to receive the sentence.
(e) The court below shall execute the order
in the modified manner.
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp
