Kerala High Court
Haridasan vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
1
2025:KER:69206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA,
1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2006 IN CRL.A NO.140
OF 2005 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2005 IN CC NO.63 OF 2004 OF SPECIAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF MARADU
CASES, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
HARIDASAN
S/O. KANNAN, KUNDAKAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
VENGALI AMSOM, DESOM, VENGALI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.PRASUN.S
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
2
2025:KER:69206
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
3
2025:KER:69206
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a
prosecution under Section 498 A of IPC.
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.63 of
2004 on the files of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, (Marad Cases), Kozhikode (for short, 'the trial court').
3. The prosecution allegation is that he subjected his
wife, PW1 to cruelty both physically and mentally demanding
more dowry and thereby committed the offence.
4. Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution,
PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked.
DW1 was examined on the side of the defence. MO1 and MO2
were identified. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner
guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
2025:KER:69206
he was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two months. The fine amount if realised was
ordered to be given to PW1 as compensation. The petitioner
challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before
the Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short, 'the appellate court') in
Crl.A.No.140 of 2005. 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.
5. During the pendency of this revision petition, the
revision petitioner died. No legal heirs of the revision petitioner
have come forward to prosecute the revision petition. The
Supreme Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra v. State of W.B.
[1959 KHC 463] has held that on the death of the revision
petitioner during the pendency of the revision filed under Section
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
2025:KER:69206
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the revision shall
not be abated and the revisional court has the power to examine
the correctness of the conviction and sentence. A single bench of
this Court in Rev.Bishop K.M.Chacko v. P.S.Jayaprakash
and Another [2009 (3) KHC 67), following the decision of the
Supreme Court in Pranab Kumar Mitra (supra), held that on
the death of the revision petitioner after filing of revision before
the High Court invoking Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., the
revision will not be abated and the High Court is bound to
dispose of the revision on merits in accordance with law. It was
further held that even though the legal heirs have not come
forward to pursue the revision, the jurisdiction of the High Court
to decide the revision, after it has been taken on file, on its merits
does not cease.
6. I have heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeetha Raj.N.R., the
learned Public Prosecutor.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
2025:KER:69206
7. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4
and 5 to prove its case and to fix the culpability on the petitioner.
PW1 is the wife of the petitioner. PW3 is the father and PW4 is
the daughter of the PW1. PW5 is the doctor who examined PW1.
The marriage between the petitioner and PW1 took place in the
year 1989 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The
crime was registered after 11 years of the marriage. PW1 narrated
each and every incident of cruelty meted out by her at the hands
of the petitioner. PWs 3 and 4, who are the father and daughter
of PW1, corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW5, treated PW1 at
the Government Hospital, Nilambur, when she was admitted
there as a result of the injury caused by the petitioner. The
evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and also PW5 would show that PW1 was
subjected to cruelty by the petitioner both physically and
mentally demanding more dowry.
8. Both the trial court as well as the appellate court,
relying on the evidence of the above witnesses, found that the
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1533 OF 2006
2025:KER:69206
prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. I see no reason to take a
different view. It is settled that re-appreciation of evidence is not
permissible in revision. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence.
9. For the reasons stated above, the concurrent finding
of conviction and sentence stands confirmed. Since the petitioner
is no more, the substantive sentence has become inoperative.
The fine amount shall be realised in accordance with Section 421
of Cr.P.C.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
