Kerala High Court
Monibabu Viswas vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 26TH BHADRA,
1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 537 OF 2016
CRIME NO.375/2011 OF FEROKE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2016 IN CRL.A NO.508
OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT II, KOZHIKODE ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2014 IN CC NO.730 OF 2011
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -V,KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
MONIBABU VISWAS
AGED 34 YEARS
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PRABHULLA VISWAS, MARHABA
APARTMENTS, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.R.SREEJITH
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.537 of 2016
2
2025:KER:69400
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.537 of 2016
.....................................................................
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and
sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section
324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for
short).
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.730
of 2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V,
Kozhikode. He stood trial before that court for committing the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506(i) of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 02.07.2011 at about
12:30 p.m., the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 and hit him on
his left eye using a nail cutter, causing injuries.
4. The trial court, after appreciation of the evidence on
record and hearing both sides, found the accused not guilty of the
offences under Sections 341 and 506(i) IPC and acquitted him
thereof. But it found the accused guilty of committing an offence
punishable under Section 324 IPC convicted him thereunder. The
2025:KER:69400
accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section
324 IPC with a default clause. The fine amount was also ordered
to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing
Crl.Appl.No.508 of 2014 before the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Kozhikode. The said court, by judgment dated 27.01.2016
dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard, Sri. P.R. Sreejith, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned
Public Prosecutor.
7. An appraisal of the materials on record would go to
show that PW1, the injured, has given evidence in tune with the
prosecution case. His evidence shows that on 02.07.2011 at about
12:30 p.m., the accused attacked him with a nail cutter, on his left
eye, which he identified as MO1. It is to be seen that the evidence
of PW3, who is an eyewitness to the incident, also supports the
version of PW1 regarding the incident. Further, the medical
evidence adduced by examining PW4 and marking Ext.P3 wound
certificate shows that PW1 was emained by PW4 within 5 minutes
of the incident and that at that time, PW1 was suffering from
2025:KER:69400
ecchymosis in his left eye. This evidence also corroborates with
the testimony of PW1 regarding the manner in which the incident
has taken place and the injury sustained by him. Thus, I am of the
view that both the trial court and the appellate court have
considered the evidence on record in a proper perspective and has
arrived at a correct conclusion of guilt against the accused.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submits that the sentence imposed on the accused may
be reduced considering the fact that the incident has taken place
in the year 2011, the age of the accused, and the chances of his
reformation. As stated earlier, the accused has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 324 IPC, with a default
clause. Considering the nature of offence, the weapon used, the
injury sustained by the victim, and the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence imposed
upon the revision petitioner/accused by the trial court and as
confirmed by the appellate court is on a higher side, and the same
can be modified and reduced to one of simple imprisonment till
the rising of the court under section 324 IPC. But I am also of the
view that the revision petitioner/accused can be ordered to pay a
2025:KER:69400
sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to PW1 under section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. In case of default, the revision petitioner/accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed in part
as follows;
1. The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused
under Section 324 IPC in CC No.730 of 2011 by the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode,
and as confirmed in Crl.Appl.No.508 of 2014, by the
Additional Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode, is upheld.
2. The sentence imposed upon the revision
petitioner/accused is modified and reduced to one of
simple imprisonment till the rising of the court under
Section 324 IPC.
3. The revision petitioner/accused is also ordered
to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to
PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In case of default
in payment of compensation, the revision
petitioner/accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.
4. The amounts, if any, deposited by the revision
petitioner shall be given credit to, while considering
payment of compensation as ordered afore.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
Dxy
