Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan vs The State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2025
1
Crl.R.P.No.872/2016
2025:KER:45319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 872 OF 2016
CRIME NO.193/2008 OF Areacode Police Station, Malappuram
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT 27.01.2016 IN Crl.A
NO.199 OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT - II, MANJERI, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 05.06.2012 IN CC NO.316 OF 2009 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE ,MANJERI)
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAMBISAN
UDAYA NIVAS, THRIKKEPATTA, KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031, FOR THE SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
Addl.R2 SHYLAJA K
W/O. DAMODHARAN NAMBISAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
POOMANGALATH HOUSE, KAVANOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
- 679573 (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 24/6/2025 IN CRL.M.A.NO.3970/2016 IN
2
Crl.R.P.No.872/2016
2025:KER:45319
CRL.R.P.872/2016)
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA M.N.
SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MAYA.M.N
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.R.P.No.872/2016
2025:KER:45319
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J.
-------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 872 of 2016
---------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.316/2009 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Manjeri. He stood trial for committing the offences
punishable under Sections 447 and 326 IPC and was convicted
and sentenced thereunder. The appeal filed against the said
conviction and sentence, as Crl.Appeal No.199/2012, ended in
dismissal from the hands of the Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Manjeri.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 11.6.2008 at about
11.45 am, the accused, with an intention to cause hurt to PW1,
trespassed into her house which is situated at Kavanoor and
caused grievous hurt to her, by beating her with an iron pipe.
3. In the trial court from the side of the prosecution PW1
2025:KER:45319
to PW8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 documents and MO1
to MO3 were marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C,
the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent.
From the side of the accused, no evidence was adduced and only
Ext.D1 contradiction was marked through the prosecution
witnesses. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on
record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under
Sections 447 and 326 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under
Section 447 IPC and to simple imprisonment for a period of two
years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 IPC,
with a default clause. From the fine amount, an amount of
Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1
under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. As stated earlier, the appeal
preferred by the accused against the said judgment ended in
dismissal.
4. Heard Adv.Smitha Babu, the learned counsel
2025:KER:45319
appearing for the revision petitioner, Adv.Shamseera C.Ashraf,
the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2 nd respondent
and Adv.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
the 1st respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner at the
outset itself submitted that the accused and PW1, the defacto
complainant, who are relatives, have settled the matter and
PW1 does not wish to proceed with the case. She also submitted
that an affidavit, sworn to by PW1/defacto complainant, has
been filed along with the Crl.M.A. No.1/2025 and taking into
consideration of the same, the sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner/accused may be reduced. She argued that even if
the entire prosecution evidence is accepted in toto, the conviction
rendered against the accused cannot be sustained and both the
trial court and the appellate court had failed in appreciating the
evidence in a proper perspective.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned
judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere
2025:KER:45319
with the same. She also submitted that the offence under
Section 326 IPC is not compoundable and considering the gravity
of the offence, the sentence may not be reduced.
7. The learned counsel for the additional 2 nd
respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the parties have
settled the matter and accordingly, the defacto complainant has
filed an affidavit stating that she does not wish to prosecute the
matter.
8. While considering the materials on record, it is to be
seen that no error/irregularity has been committed by the trial
court and the appellate court in appreciating the evidence on
record and reaching the conclusion of guilt against the accused.
The evidence of PW1, the injured, would show that while she
was sitting in the veranda of her house, the accused came there
and attacked her using MO1 iron rod. It also shows that in the
attack she had suffered injuries on her forehead and left leg.
The evidence of PW2, the daughter of PW1, who was present in
the scene, also corroborates in material particulars with the
2025:KER:45319
evidence of PW1 regarding the manner in which the incident has
taken place and the injuries suffered by PW1.
9. The evidence on record further reveals that PW3, the
husband of PW1, has taken PW1 to the hospital immediately
after the incident and the evidence of PW7, the doctor, coupled
with Ext.P5 wound certificate, would show that PW1 had
sustained a deep lacerated wound on the right side of forehead,
a lacerated wound on the right eyebrow and fracture of both
bones of left leg. It is again to be taken note that, the recitals in
Ext.P1 FIS lodged by PW1 while undergoing treatment in the
Medical College Hospital, also supports and substantiates the
testimony of PW1 regarding these facts. That apart, it is to be
seen that both PW1 and PW2 have identified the weapon and
also the accused, who is their close relative, in the court.
10. Now the question to be considered is regarding the
sentence. As stated earlier, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner and the additional 2 nd
respondent that during the pendency of this Criminal Revision
2025:KER:45319
Petition, the matter has been settled between the parties and an
affidavit has been filed by PW1, along with the Crl.M.A. No.1 of
2025 stating that she does not wish to proceed with the
complaint. A perusal of Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2025 also confirms the
said fact. It is beyond doubt that in cases of non compoundable
offences, when the matter is settled between the parties, the
same can be considered as a factor while imposing sentence.
(See Ram Lal And Another v. State of J & K [(1999) 2 SCC
213], Bankat And Another v. State of Maharashtra [(2005)
1 SCC 343]. If so, in the light of the afore facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that while upholding the
conviction against the revision petitioner/accused, the sentence
imposed against him can be modified and reduced appropriately.
I am thus of the view that the sentence can be modified to one
of simple imprisonment till the rising of the court under Section
447 of IPC and simple imprisonment till the rising of the court
and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 326 IPC. In case of
default in payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused, shall
2025:KER:45319
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. In the
result, this Criminal revision petition is allowed in part as follows:
i) The conviction of the revision petitioner under
Sections 447 and 326 IPC by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Manjeri in CC No.316/2009 and as
affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.199/2012 by the
Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, is upheld.
ii) The sentence imposed on the revision
petitioner/accused is modified and reduced to one of
simple imprisonment till the rising of the court under
Section 447 IPC and to one of simple imprisonment till
the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 326 IPC.
iii) In case of default in payment of fine, the revision
petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one month.
2025:KER:45319
iv) The sentences shall be run concurrently and set off
is also granted.
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
