Kerala High Court
Vinod vs The State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
1
2025:KER:78567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
CRIME NO.303/2012 OF HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.03.2021 IN CRL.A NO.35
OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - IV, PALAKKAD ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2017 IN CC NO.2586 OF 2012
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 VINOD
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O ARUKUTTY, VARKKAD HOUSE,
MUTTIKULANGARA,
PALAKKAD-678594.
2 SANTHOSH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O DURAISWAMY, VARKKAD HOUSE,
MUTTIKULANGARA,
PALAKKAD-678594.
BY ADV SRI.V.A.VINOD
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
2
2025:KER:78567
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678010.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
3
2025:KER:78567
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a
prosecution under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The
petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C.No.2586 of 2012 on
the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Palakkad
(for short, 'the trial court'). They faced trial for the offences
punishable under Sections 341 & 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that on
21.05.2012 at about 07.30 a.m., the petitioners, in furtherance of
their common intention and on account of previous enmity
towards PW1, wrongfully restrained him and voluntarily caused
hurt on his shoulder with MO1 knife and thereby committed the
offence.
3. Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution,
PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. MO1
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
2025:KER:78567
was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the
trial court found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted
for the said offence. They were sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
one month each for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.
They were found not guilty of the offence under Section 341 of
the IPC and were acquitted of the said offence. The petitioners
challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before
the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Palakkad (for short, 'the
appellate court') in Crl.A.No.35 of 2017. The appellate court
confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court and
dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed
challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the
appellate court.
4. I have heard Sri.V.A.Vinod, the learned counsel for the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
2025:KER:78567
petitioners and Sri.Sangeetha Raj.N.R, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
5. The trial court as well as the appellate court relied on
the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 to prove the incident and to fix the
culpability on the accused. PW1 is the injured and the defacto
complainant. PWs 2 and 3 are the occurrence witnesses. PW4 is
the doctor who treated PW1 after the incident and issued Ext.P2
wound certificate. PW1 deposed that when he was sleeping at the
house of the brother of his father Rajamani, the petitioners came
to the courtyard of the house and called him. When he came out
of the house, the accused No.2 asked him why he had beaten his
elder brother. When he answered in the negative, the accused
No.1 caught hold of his hand and the accused No.2 assaulted him
with MO1 knife and he sustained injury. He was taken to District
Hospital, Palakkad from where he gave Ext.P5 FI Statement. He
identified the petitioners and also MO1 weapon. PWs 2 and 3 are
neighbours. They gave evidence in tune with the evidence given
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
2025:KER:78567
by PW1. PW2 deposed that he saw the petitioners assaulting
PW1. PW3, who is the neighbour, deposed that 0n 21.05.2012 at
7.30 a.m., he heard hue and cry from the house of Rajamani.
When he rushed to the house, he saw the petitioners beating PW1
and on seeing him, they ran away. He also deposed that PW1 had
sustained injuries. Even though PWs1 and 3 were cross examined
in length, nothing tangible could be extracted from their
testimony to discredit their version. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3
is corroborated by the testimony of PW4. PW4 deposed that he
treated PW1 and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate. The evidence of
PW4 coupled with Ext.P2 would show that PW1 had sustained
injury on his shoulder.
6. Both the trial court and the appellate court believed
the testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and found that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the
petitioners committed the offence punishable under Section 324
r/w Section 34 of IPC. I see no reason to take a different view. It
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
2025:KER:78567
is settled that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in a
revision.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners are the only breadwinners of their family, hence,
substantive sentence may be reduced till the rising of the court.
Considering the age of the petitioners, the nature of the injury
sustained by the victim, and also the entire the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the substantive
sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the
appellate court can be reduced till the rising of the court.
However, the petitioners shall be directed to adequately
compensate PW1.
8. For the reason stated above, the conviction of the
petitioners under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby
confirmed. The petitioners are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a
compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each
CRL.REV.PET NO. 247 OF 2021
2025:KER:78567
to PW1, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of
three months each. The petitioners shall appear before the trial
court to receive the imprisonment till rising of the court and to
deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month
from today.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
