Kerala High Court
Shaji vs The State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 588 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2016 IN CRL.A NO.132
OF 2015 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2015 IN
CC NO.687 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 SHAJI
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. BALAN, ODIKKUNI HOUSE, KSEB ROAD,
ORKKATTERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2 MANOJAN
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, EROTHKUNI HOUSE,
OPK BUS STOP, ORKKATTERY P.O., KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SHRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDACHERY POLICE
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SMT.MAYA M.N.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2016
2
2025:KER:47109
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.588 of 2016
...........................................................
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2025
ORDER
The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2
respectively in CC No.687 of 2012 on the files of the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara. They stood trial before
that court for committing the offences punishable under Sections
341 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein
after referred to as 'IPC' for short) and was convicted and
sentenced thereunder. The revision petitioners carried the
matter in appeal before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode by filing
Crl.Appl.No.132 of 2015. The Additional Sessions Court-I,
Kozhikode, by judgment dated 06.02.2016 allowed the appeal in
part by upholding the conviction and modifying the sentence.
2. The prosecution case is that on 17.05.2012 at about
06.30 p.m., at a place called Orkkattery, the accused two in
number, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully
restrained PW1 and caused hurt to him by using a wooden raft
and iron rod.
3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution,
2025:KER:47109
PW1 to PW8 were examined, and Ext.P1 to P5 documents and
MO1 and MO2 were identified and marked. When the accused
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence
and contended that they are innocent. From the side of the
accused, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an
appreciation of the evidence on record, found both the accused
guilty and convicted them under Sections 341 and 324 r/w
Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each under Section 341 IPC and simple imprisonment
for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each
under Section and 324 IPC, both with a default clause. In the
appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction
imposed by the trial court and modified the sentence to one of
simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine
of Rs.5000/- each under Section 324 IPC and simple
imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each under Section 341 r/w Section 34 IPC, both with a
default clause.
2025:KER:47109
4. Heard Sri.K.B.Arunkumar the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners and Smt. Maya M.N. the learned Public
Prosecutor. Sri.K.B.Arunkumar submitted that the 2nd revision
petitioner/2nd accused had died during the pendency of this
revision petition and no one else has come up to get themselves
impleaded. Perused the records.
5. Sri. Arunukumar submitted that both the trial court
and the appellate court did not appreciate the evidence in a
proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of
guilt against the accused. He argued that the present case has
been falsely foisted against the accused due to political rivalry
and the evidence of PW2 cannot be believed since, he is
affiliated with the party of PW1. He also contended that in any
case this Court finds the accused guilty of the offences alleged,
the sentence imposed upon them may be reduced.
6. Per contra, Smt. Maya M.N. supported the impugned
judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere
with the same. She argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW2
regarding the incident and injuries suffered by PW1 are credible
and cogent. She submitted that the oral testimonies of PW1 and
PW2 finds corroboration from the medical evidence adduced by
2025:KER:47109
the prosecution and even though these witnesses have been
cross examined in extenso, nothing has been brought out in
material to disbelieve them. Hence, she prayed that this revision
petition may be dismissed.
7. The materials on record would show that, both the
trial court and the appellate court have relied upon the evidence
of PW1 and PW2 to find that the incident as alleged has taken
place. The evidence of PW1 would show that on 17.05.2012 at
about 06.30 p.m., near the jeep stand in Orkkattery, both the
accused came towards him and the 1 st accused by using a rafter
and the 2nd accused by using an iron pipe had attacked him. The
1st accused thus hit him on his forehead and the 2 nd accused beat
him on his head and shoulder causing injuries. When PW2 and
one Rajan intervened, both the accused left the place.
Thereafter, he was taken to the Co-operative Hospital, Vadakara
and from there he lodged Ext.P1 FIS. He also identified both the
accused and MO1 as the rafter used by the 1 st accused to attack
him. It is to be seen that the evidence of PW2 Raveendran, also
supports and corroborates the evidence of PW1 regarding the
attack and he has also identified both the accused. Eventhough,
these witnesses have been cross examined in extenso, nothing
2025:KER:47109
has been brought out in material to disbelieve their versions.
8. The evidence on record further shows that
immediately after the incident, PW1 has sought medical aid. The
evidence of PW3 coupled with Ext.P2 wound certificate would
show that at about 07:30 p.m., on the same day he had examined
PW1 with an allegation of assault by the accused. On such
examination, he found PW1 suffering from a lacerated wound
over his forehead, an abrasion over the left parietal scalp and
contusions on the back of scalp and left shoulder. From the
afore, it can be seen that the medical evidence adduced by the
prosecution also tallies with the ocular testimonies of PW1 and
PW2 regarding the injuries sustained by PW1. It is very pertinent
to note that Ext.P2 wound certificate also mentions the names of
both the accused and the weapons used by them.
9. Be that as it may, the recitals in Ext.P1 FIS given by
PW1 on 18.05.2012, while undergoing treatment in the hospital
also tallies in material particulars with the testimony of PW1
regarding the incident and the injuries suffered by him. It is true
that the accused has brought out a contradiction in the evidence
of PW1 wherein, he stated that the 1 st accused has dropped the
weapon in the scene of occurrence itself, while in Ext.P1 FIS he
2025:KER:47109
has given a statement that the 1st accused has taken away the
weapon with him, when he left the place. But I am of the view
that such a minor incongruity in the evidence is not at all a
sufficient reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of
PW1 and which is well supported by the evidence of PW2.
10. The upshot of the afore discussions is that there is no
error or illegality committed by both the trial court and appellate
court while appreciating the evidence on record and arriving at
a finding of guilt against the accused.
11. The next question to be considered is regarding the
sentence. Considering the nature of the offences, its gravity, the
weapons used, the injuries suffered by PW1, the fact that the
incident has taken place in 2012, and the facts and
circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the sentences
imposed on the revision petitioners/accused by the appellate
court can be modified and reduced. I am thus of the view that
the accused can be sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
till the rising of the court, each under Section 341 and 324 IPC.
But I am also of the view that both the accused can be ordered to
pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each to PW1 and in case of
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
2025:KER:47109
month each.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as
follows;
1. The conviction and sentence of the revision
petitioners/accused under Section 341 and 324 r/w
Section 34 IPC in CC No. 687 of 2012 by the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakara and as
confirmed in Crl. Appeal No.132 of 2015 by the
Additional Sessions Court-I, Kozhikode, is upheld.
2. The sentence imposed upon the revision
petitioners/accused under Section 341 and 324 IPC
are modified and reduced to one of simple
imprisonment till the rising of the court, each.
3. The revision petitioners/accused are also ordered
to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- each to PW1
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In case of default, the
revision petitioners/accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
Dxy
