Kerala High Court
Biju @ Vithu vs State Of Kerala on 8 September, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
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. 917 OF 2025
CRIME NO.862/2014 OF Puthencruz Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2025 IN Crl.A NO.233 OF
2021 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2020
IN CC NO.1479 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, KOLENCHERRY
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
BIJU @ VITHU
AGED 50 YEARS
CHALILPUTHENPURAYI HOUSE, NADUKKURIZU BHAGAM,
MARANGATTULLI KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686691
BY ADVS. SHRI.JIJO PAUL
SHRI.K.C.POULOSE
SRI.P.V.KURIACHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2025:KER:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI HRITHWIK C S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.917 of 2025
----------------------------------------------
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 12.03.2020 in CC No.1479/2014 of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry and the
judgment dated 26.07.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.233/2021 of
the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha. It is
a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence
punishable under Sections 324 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that, the accused with
an intention to cause hurt to the defacto complainant Kumaran
and to deter him from his official duty as the salesman of the
Beverages Corporation outlet functioning in Shop bearing
No:IX/777 of the Puthencruz Grama Panchayat attacked the
defacto complainant on 26-06-2014 while at the Beverages
2025:KER:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
Corporation outlet functioning in Shop bearing No:IX/777 of the
Puthencruz Grama Panchayat located within Puthencruz Kara,
Puthencruz Village. On 26-06-2014, at 08:50 p.m, the accused
attacked the defacto complainant Kumaran by using a beer
bottle which can be used as a dangerous weapon on the head of
the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant sustained
injury on his head. Thus he accused allegedly committed the
above offences.
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution
examined PWs 1 to 7, and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. After
going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found
that the petitioner is guilty under Sections 324 and 332 IPC.
The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months under Section 324 IPC and to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months under Section 332 IPC also.
Sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off was also
allowed for the period from 27-6-2014 to 02-07-2014.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, an
appeal is filed before the Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. The
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha
2025:KER:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
considered the appeal. After going through the evidence and
documents, the appellate court allowed the appeal in part and
the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner
under Section 332 IPC was set aside. The conviction imposed
under Section 324 IPC is confirmed. But the sentence was
reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by
the same, this revision petition is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The trial court and the appellate court
concurrently found that the petitioner committed the offence
under Section 324 IPC. 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:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
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.
7. What remains is whether the sentence imposed
on the petitioner is to be interfered by this Court or not. The
appellate court already found that PW1 was not discharging his
official duty and therefore, the offence under Section 332 IPC is
not attracted. Now the offence alleged is under Section 324
IPC, which is a hurt with a dangerous weapon. The weapon
used in this case is a beer bottle. This Court perused the
injuries sustained to PW1. A perusal of the same would show
that the victim sustained a lacerated wound on the left parieto-
occipital scalp. There was swelling around the wound.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the
substantive sentence can be reduced to the period already
undergone and there can be a direction to pay a compensation
to PW1.
Therefore, this revision petition is allowed in part, with
following directions:
2025:KER:66570
CRL.REV.PET NO. 917 OF 2025
1. The conviction imposed on the revision petitioner
under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner as
per the impugned judgment is set aside. The
revision petitioner is directed undergo simple
imprisonment for 5 days and to pay a compensation
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to PW1.
In default of payment of the compensation amount,
the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
3. Set off is allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the
period of 27.06.2014 to 02.07.2014.
4. The revision petitioner is given two months' time to
surrender before the jurisdictional court.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
