Kerala High Court
Subhadra vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2025:KER:78581
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. 76 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.12.2021 IN CRA NO.133 OF
2019 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-V, PALAKKAD,
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2019 IN CC NO.2130
OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, ALATHUR
CRIME NO.348/2012 OF MANGALAM DAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND ACCUSED:
SUBHADRA
AGED 54 YEARS
WIFE OF KUNCHU, PUTHENKULAMBU, ELAVAMPADAM.P.O,
ALTHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678684
BY ADV SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ N.R.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78581
CRL.REV.PET NO. 76 OF 2022
2
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.2130/2012 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alathur (for
short 'the trial court'). She faced trial for the offence punishable
under Section 324 of IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation in short is that on 26.06.2012
at 07:00 a.m., while PW1 was standing in the pathway, the
petitioner uttered obscene words against her, beat on her right
elbow with MO1 wooden stick causing her injury and thereby
committed the offence.
3. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 11 were examined,
Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the prosecution and MO1
was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the
trial court found the petitioner guilty under Section 324 of IPC and
she was convicted for the said offence. She was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a
2025:KER:78581
CRL.REV.PET NO. 76 OF 2022
period of one month. The petitioner challenged the conviction and
sentence of the trial court before the Additional Sessions Court-V,
Palakkad (for short 'the appellate court') in Crl.A. No.133/2019.
The appellate court confirmed the conviction and reduced the
sentence to simple imprisonment for a period of three months and
to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of one month. This revision petition has been filed
challenging the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate
court.
4. I have heard Sri.V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil), the
learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R., the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. PW1 is the injured; PWs 2 and 3 are the occurrence
witnesses and PW11 is the doctor who treated PW1 after the
incident. PW1 and the petitioner are neighbors. PW1 deposed that
on 26.06.2012 at 07:00 a.m., the petitioner beat her with a broom,
pelted a stone on her head and also beat on her hand with a reaper.
2025:KER:78581
CRL.REV.PET NO. 76 OF 2022
She identified the reaper as MO1. PW2 is the relative and neighbor
of PW1. She deposed that while she was sitting in her house, she
saw the petitioner beating PW1 with a stick. PW3 is the husband of
PW1. He deposed that the petitioner pelted stones on the head of
his wife and beat on her right hand.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out certain
contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. It
is true that there are minor contradictions. However, they are not
significant affecting the fabric of the prosecution case. Even though
PWs 1 to 3 were examined in length, nothing tangible could be
extracted in their cross examination to discredit their testimony.
7. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 get support from the medical
evidence adduced by the prosecution through PW11 and Ext.P6
wound certificate. The testimony of PW11 and Ext.P6 would show
that PW1 had sustained injury in the incident.
8. The trial court as well as the appellate court relying on the
evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 11 found that the prosecution had
2025:KER:78581
CRL.REV.PET NO. 76 OF 2022
succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner
has committed offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. I see
no reason to take a different view in this revision petition. It is
settled that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in
revision.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a 56-year-old lady and suffering from various ailments.
The counsel further submitted that no serious injury has been
sustained by the victim. In these circumstances, according to the
counsel, the substantive sentence may be reduced till rising of the
court. I find some force in the said submission. Considering the
gender and age of the petitioner, the nature of the injury sustained
by the victim and also the fact that the petitioner has been
undergoing the ordeal of prosecution for the last six years, I am of
the view that the substantive sentence can be reduced till rising of
the court. However, the petitioner shall be directed to compensate
PW1 adequately.
2025:KER:78581
CRL.REV.PET NO. 76 OF 2022
10. In the light of the above discussions, the concurrent
finding of conviction of the petitioner under Section 324 of IPC is
hereby confirmed. The petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till
the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to
PW1, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three
months. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court within two
months from today to receive the imprisonment till the rising of the
court and to deposit the compensation.
This revision petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
NP
