Kerala High Court
Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:66451
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
CRIME NO.391/2009 OF Varandarappally Police Station
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2020 IN Crl.A NO.42 OF
2014 OF THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2014 IN CC NO.1007
OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,CHAVAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O GANGADHARAN, MANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRITHALUR
WEST, VADANAPPILLY P.O.VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 614.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
SMT S.SEETHA, SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66451
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
2
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.280 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This criminal revision petition is filed against the
conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as
per judgment dated 30.01.2014 in CC No.1007/2009 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad and the
judgment dated 22.12.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.42/2014 of
the I Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur.
2. The prosecution case is that, on 20/05/2009 at 8.15
PM, while the defacto complainant and CWs 2 and 3 were
talking in front of Universal shop situated in Sree Sylam
Auditorium Complex, accused Nos.1 and 2 came in an
autorikshaw and scolded them in filthy language. When defacto
complainant questioned the same accused No.1 beat him with a
torch on his head and he has sustained injury. So the accused
2025:KER:66451
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
alleged to have committed an offence Punishable under Section
324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
IPC).
3. To substantiate the case, prosecution examined PWs
1 to 5 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. MO1 is the torch. After
going through the evidence and documents, the trial court
found that the petitioner, who is the 1st accused, is guilty under
Section 324 IPC. The 2nd accused was absconding and his case
was splitted and renumbered. The petitioner was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an appeal
is filed before the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The I Additional
Sessions Judge, Thrissur considered the appeal. The Sessions
Court confirmed the conviction under Section 324 IPC and
reduced the substantive sentence to one month instead of one
year. The fine imposed by the trial court is confirmed.
Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
2025:KER:66451
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is unreliable. There is
contradiction in their evidence. It is also submitted that in the
first information given to the doctor by the victim, it is stated
that the weapon used is an iron rode and subsequently it is
changed to torch. The counsel submitted that the trial court
and the appellate court erred in convicting the petitioner under
Section 324 IPC. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there is
nothing to interfere with the impugned judgments. The trial
court and the appellate court concurrently found that the
petitioner is guilty under Section 324 IPC.
7. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the
concurrent finding of conviction invoking the powers of
revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality,
irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence. This Court
anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the
contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered
opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction
imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate
2025:KER:66451
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that
the petitioner was guilty under Section 324 IPC. Therefore,
there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under
Section 324 IPC.
8. What remains is whether the sentence imposed on
the petitioner is to be interfered by this Court or not. The
modified sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is simple
imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with
a default sentence. The alleged incident happened in the year
2009. No criminal antecedent is reported before the trial court
or the appellate court. The petitioner is now aged 67 years.
Moreover, the sentence that can be imposed under Section 324
IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term that may
extend to three years, or a fine, or both. That means substantive
sentence is not mandatory. But this Court has to consider the
injuries sustained to the victim also. As per the wound
certificate, the victim sustained a lacerated wound on scalp.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the
substantive sentence can be reduced to till rising of court and
there can be a direction to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
2025:KER:66451
CRL.REV.PET NO. 280 OF 2021
Therefore, this revision petition is allowed in part, with
following directions:
1. The conviction imposed on the revision petitioner
under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is
set aside. The revision petitioner is directed
undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to
pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) under Section 324 IPC. In default
of payment of the compensation amount, the
revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
3. If the compensation amount is paid/realised, the
same should be given to PW1. The revision
petitioner is given two months' time to surrender
before the jurisdictional court.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
