Kerala High Court
Rasheed vs State on 15 October, 2025
2025:KER:76581
Crl.R.P.No.183/2007
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2006 IN CRL.A NO.792 OF
2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2004 IN CC NO.62 OF 2002 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PERAMBRA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RASHEED,
S/O. MEERAN,
KURACHUNDU AMSOM,
DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RENJITH GEORGE, SR PP,
SMT.VRINDA BABU AMICUS CURIAE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:76581
Crl.R.P.No.183/2007
-:2:-
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Fast Track Special Court (Adhoc-II),
Kozhikode, and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra,
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence
under Sections 448 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,
'IPC'), are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.01.2002, at about
9:30 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into the terrace of the house of PW1
& PW2, and when the above witnesses questioned him about his
presence there, he inflicted voluntary hurt upon those witnesses. It is
alleged that the petitioner beat PW1 & PW2 with hands and dashed the
head of PW1 to the wall of the water tank, causing injuries. The final
report filed by the Station House Officer of Koorachundu Police Station in
connection with the said crime, was taken on to files by the learned
Magistrate as C.C.No.62/2002. In the trial conducted in the said case, 11
prosecution witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW11 and six
documents were marked as Exts P1 to P6. The learned Magistrate, after
the conclusion of the trial and hearing both sides, found the petitioner
guilty of commission of offence under Sections 448 & 323 IPC, and
2025:KER:76581
convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months each for the commission of the aforesaid
offences. Though the petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence
before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
declined to interfere, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction
and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. It is aggrieved by the above
concurrent verdicts of the Appellate Court and the Trial Court that the
petitioner is here with this revision.
3. As per the order dated 16.09.2025, Adv. Ms.Vrinda Babu was
appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioner since the
counsel for the revision petitioner had relinquished vakalath, and the
revision petitioner did not engage a new counsel to present his case.
4. Heard Adv. Ms.Vrinda Babu, the learned Amicus Curiae and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. The Trial Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 to
arrive at the finding that the petitioner criminally trespassed into the
terrace portion of their house and resorted to physical assault upon them
when they questioned the aforesaid act. The learned Amicus Curiae
representing the revision petitioner would contend that there are
discrepancies in the statements of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the acts
2025:KER:76581
alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, and hence it is not
safe to rely on their evidence in the absence of corroboration. It is
pointed out that two other witnesses cited by the prosecution had
turned hostile to the prosecution. It is further submitted by the learned
Amicus Curiae that PW1 and PW2 nurtured enmity with the petitioner in
connection with a criminal case registered against them upon the
complaint of the petitioner.
6. On going through the impugned judgments of the courts
below and the other prosecution records, it is not possible to say that
there are serious anomalies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of
PW1 & PW2, which would make their evidence wholly unreliable. It is
well-settled that minor defects and discrepancies are quite natural, and
that it cannot be a reason to eschew the evidence tendered by the
witnesses by classifying them as interested witnesses. As far as the
present case is concerned, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 do not suffer
from any serious anomalies and inconsistencies rendering it unreliable.
As regards the contention of the accused about another case registered
against PW1 & PW2 on the basis of the complaint preferred by him,
there is absolutely nothing brought out in evidence. It is true that the
Investigating Officer, who was examined PW10, had stated in answer to
2025:KER:76581
a question put during the cross-examination that a case is pending
against PW1 as Crime No.9/2002. But that alone cannot be the reason
to accept the contention of the petitioner that PW1 & PW2 have forcibly
taken him to the terrace portion of his house and roped him in the
present case.
7. Having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced in this
case and the reasoning adopted by the courts below, I am of the view
that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction of the
petitioner for the commission of the aforesaid offences. However, taking
into account the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it
appropriate to reduce the sentence awarded by the Trial Court as well as
the Appellate Court, to simple imprisonment for one month each for the
offences under Sections 448 & 323 IPC.
In the result, the revision petition is disposed of as follows:
(i) The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Perambra, and the Additional Sessions Court Fast
Track (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, in C.C.No.62/2002 and
Crl.Appeal No.792/2004 respectively, convicting the
petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 448
& 323 IPC, are hereby confirmed.
2025:KER:76581
(ii)In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts
below, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to simple
imprisonment for a period of one month each under Sections
448 & 323 IPC with the direction that the sentences shall
run concurrently.
The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Adv. Ms.
Vrinda Babu, is placed on record with appreciation.
The Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this order to the
Trial Court for enforcement of the sentence awarded upon the petitioner.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/15.10.25
