Kerala High Court
Parameswaran vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
2025:KER:83190
Crl.R.P.No.571/2006
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 571 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.12.2005 IN CRL.A NO.216 OF
2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-II,
ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2004 IN CC NO.480 OF
2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS /ACCUSED 1 & 2:
1 PARAMESWARAN,
S/O. KOCHAPPI,
NIKARTHIL HOUSE,
WARD NO.6,
KUTHIYATHODE PANCHAYATH,
THURAVOOR,
CHERTHALA.
2 SHAJI,
S/O.PARAMESWARAN,
NIKARTHIL HOUSE,
WARD NO.6,
KUTHIYATHODU PANCHAYATH,
THURAVOOR,
CHERTHALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SRI.P.T.MANOJ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
2025:KER:83190
Crl.R.P.No.571/2006
-:2:-
ERNAKULAM.
SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83190
Crl.R.P.No.571/2006
-:3:-
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Cherthala, and the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-II,
Alappuzha, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission
of offences under Sections 324 & 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'), are under challenge in this revision
petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 02.11.1999, at 06:00 a.m.,
the petitioners assaulted PW1 & PW2 and caused injuries to them. It is
stated that the first accused used an axe to hit PW1 upon the left
forehead and left eyebrow, and the second accused used an iron rod to
hit upon his right shoulder, resulting in fracture. In connection with the
aforesaid crime, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuthiyathode, laid the final
report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 324 & 326
read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses as PW1 to PW7, and marked eight documents as Exts P1 to
P8. On the part of the petitioners, one witness was examined as DW1
and four documents were marked as Exts D1 to D4. After an evaluation
of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate arrived at the finding
2025:KER:83190
that the petitioners committed the offences under Sections 326 & 324
read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, they were convicted and
sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.3,000/-
each, under Section 326 of the IPC, and simple imprisonment for three
months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, under Section 324 of the IPC.
Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict before the
Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track-II, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the
findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed
confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the
petitioners are here with this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. Assailing the concurrent findings of the courts below about
the commission of offence under Section 326 IPC, the learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution were hopelessly insufficient to establish that PW1 sustained
a fracture due to the assault by the petitioners. By adverting to the oral
evidence tendered by PW5, the Assistant Surgeon, who administered
2025:KER:83190
treatment to the injured, the learned counsel pointed out that the
aforesaid witness had confided before the Trial Court that he had no
occasion to see the x-ray result of PW1, and that it was not possible for
him to say on the basis of Ext P3 x-ray film that it denoted fracture of the
right or left clavicle. On going through the prosecution records, it is seen
that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the injured were
examined by an Orthopedic Surgeon, though it was specifically
recommended in Ext P2 wound certificate. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not possible to say on the basis
of the available evidence that PW1 sustained a fracture as a result of the
alleged incident. Admittedly, the x-ray photograph of the injured was not
taken at the hospital where the injured were admitted. Though it is
contended that Ext P3 x-ray image was taken from an institution outside
the hospital, PW5, the Doctor concerned, is not able to vouchsafe for the
same. That being so, it is not possible to say that the evidence adduced
by the prosecution would establish that the injured suffered a fracture as
a result of the alleged assault by the accused. Therefore, the findings of
the courts below that the petitioners committed the offence under
Section 326 of the IPC, are patently irregular and unsustainable.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below for
2025:KER:83190
the offence under Section 326 of the IPC are liable to be set aside in this
revision.
6. As regards the sentence awarded for the offence under
Section 324 of the IPC also, it appears to be necessary to make
appropriate modification. Pointing to the long elapse of a period of more
than 2½ decades from the date of commission of the crime, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is now aged
85 years and suffering from various ailments relating to old age. It
would be too harsh and improper to direct the detention of the
petitioners in prison at this stage. Therefore, I am of the view that the
punishment awarded for the commission of offence under Section 324
of the IPC is liable to be modified as imprisonment till the rising of the
Court, coupled with a direction to pay compensation, so that Rs.10,000/-
could be given as compensation to PW1, and Rs.5,000/- to PW2.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part as follows:-
(i) The conviction of the petitioners for the offence under
Section 326 IPC by the courts below, is hereby set aside.
(ii)The concurrent findings of the courts below holding the
petitioners guilty of Section 324 IPC and convicting them
thereunder, are hereby upheld.
2025:KER:83190
(iii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below,
the petitioners are sentenced to imprisonment till the rising
of the Court coupled with a direction to pay compensation of
Rs.7,500/-(Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) each
under Section 357(3) Cr.PC. Out of the total compensation
amount Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
shall be paid to PW1 and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand
only) to PW2.
(iv) In default of payment of compensation as directed above, the
petitioners will undergo simple imprisonment for a term of
one month.
(v) The petitioners shall surrender before the Trial Court within a
period of 30 days from today to undergo the sentence as
directed above and for making deposit of the compensation
amount.
The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order, along with the case
records, to the Trial Court forthwith.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/04.11.25
