Kerala High Court
Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2025
2025:KER:21611
Crl.R.P.No.794/2014
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 794 OF 2014
CRIME NO.473/2001 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2013 IN CRL.A NO.327 OF 2010
OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2010 IN SC NO.1758 OF
2002 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,KOTTARAKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
GOPALAKRISHNAN
S/O. KOCHAPPY, KRISHNA BHAVAN,
ALTHARAMOOTTIL, KADAKKAL,
NOW RESIDING AT KRINGAYIL COLONY,
PARUTHIKUZHY, NEDUMANGAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SRI.B.PREMNATH E
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.03.2025, THE COURT ON 17.03.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:21611
Crl.R.P.No.794/2014
-:2:-
ORDER
The concurrent conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant
Sessions Court, Kottarakkara, and the Additional Sessions Court-III,
Kollam, in S.C. No.1758/2002 and Crl.A.No.327/2010, respectively, in
connection with the commission of offence under Sections 458, 324 &
307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short, 'IPC'), are under challenge
in this revision filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in the said
cases.
2. The prosecution case is that on 01.11.2001, at about
7:30 p.m., the petitioner committed house breaking by night into the
house where PW2, his estranged wife, was residing along with her
parents, dragged CW2, the father of PW2, out of that house to a
nearby paddy field and resorted to the gruesome acts of stabbing five
persons, including PW2, her father, her sisters, her brother-in-law and
her sister's son, causing serious injuries to the said persons. The
provocation for the crime is said to be the resistance offered by PW2
and CW2 to the petitioner when he attempted to forcefully take away
his child from the custody of PW2. PW1 to PW5 are said to have
sustained the injuries due to the act of petitioner stabbing helter-skelter
2025:KER:21611
when they attempted to prevent the petitioner stabbing CW2. Thus,
the petitioner faced prosecution for the commission of the aforesaid
offences before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara.
3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after evaluating the
evidence adduced by the prosecution through the examination of PW1
to PW22, and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P21 and the
material objects identified as MO1 to MO3, and also the defence
evidence adduced through the testimony of the accused as DW1 and
the documents marked as Exts D1 to D3, found that the prosecution
has successfully established the charge levelled against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 458 IPC, rigorous
imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 324 IPC
and rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine Rs.10,000/- under
Section 307 IPC. A default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nine
months was awarded for non payment of fine. It was also directed
that, if the fine amount is realised, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to CW2 and
Rs.2,500/- each shall be paid to PW1 & PW3 as compensation under
2025:KER:21611
section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short,
'Cr.PC').
4. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Kollam, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and upheld the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner. It is the
aforesaid judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Kollam, in Crl.A.No.327/2010, which is under challenge in this revision.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. It could be seen from the judgments rendered by the Trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court that the entire evidence on record
has been correctly appreciated by both the above courts for arriving at
a conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the
charge levelled against the petitioner/accused. The evidence tendered
by the injured witnesses, who were examined as PW1 to PW5, has
been dealt with in detail by the Trial Court. There is absolutely no
anomaly or irregularity committed by the Assistant Sessions Court in
relying on the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses to arrive at a
conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged in
2025:KER:21611
this case. The Appellate Court had resorted to a re-appraisal of the
entire evidence and concluded that the prosecution has successfully
established the case against the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a futile attempt
to show that the requisites of Section 458 IPC are not brought out from
the evidence adduced in this case. I find no merit in the above
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner since it is writ large
from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the petitioner had committed
house breaking by night to the residence of PW2 after making
preparations to inflict serious injuries upon those who obstruct his act
of taking away the child of PW2.
8. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the recovery of the weapon used for the commission
of the crime is not in consonance with the procedures prescribed by
law. The above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner also
cannot be accepted, in view of the convincing evidence brought forth
through the testimonies of PW1 to PW5 about the act of the
petitioner/accused stabbing the above witnesses with MO1 knife. The
above weapon used by the petitioner has been correctly identified by
2025:KER:21611
the witnesses. The medical evidence adduced through the examination
of PW15 & PW19, the doctors who treated the injured witnesses,
would also confirm the infliction of multiple injuries by the petitioner
upon PW1 to PW5 with the above weapon. In the above
circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there had been some discrepancies in connection with the recovery
of the weapon from the residence of the petitioner, is of no
consequence. Upon an overall consideration of the prosecution records
and the judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court,
I am of the view that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the said courts in the matter of conviction and
sentence awarded to the petitioner. Needless to say that the present
revision is devoid of merit.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
The Registry shall transmit the case records along with a copy of
this order to the Trial Court for immediate enforcement of the sentence.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
