Kerala High Court
Mohanakumar vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:69578
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
CRIME NO.796/2004 OF Vaikom Police Station, Kottayam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2023 IN CrL. APPEAL NO.158
OF 2019 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II
(SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.05.2019 IN CC NO.671 OF 2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS-I, VAIKOM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
MOHANAKUMAR
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRA PANICKER, SREERAGAM,
ARATTUKULANGARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE,
VAIKOM, PIN - 686141
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAHUL SUNIL
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SMT.SRUTHY K.K
SMT.NIKITA J. MENDEZ
2025:KER:69578
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
2
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 R. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRA PANICKER, PANDAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KOCHUKAVALA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM,, PIN -
686141
3 R. SURESH KUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRA PANICKER, VINAYAKA,
NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM, PIN - 686141
4 BALA M NAIR,
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, PANDAPPALLIL HOUSE,
KOCHUKAVALA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM,
PIN - 686141
BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.M.S.ANEER
SHRI.PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
SHRI.SARATH K.P.
SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:69578
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.684 of 2023
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the
concurrent finding of acquittal of the party respondents in this
revision. Petitioner is the defacto complainant in CC
No.671/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Vaikom. It is a prosecution initiated against the party
respondents alleging offences punishable under Sections 465,
467, 471, 474 and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 3
sharing common intention to deprive the defacto complainant
Mohankumar of his share in the petrol pump K.R. Panicker and
Sons bearing Bharat Petroleum Corporation No. KL-182, forged
a deed whereby defacto complainant herein on 07.08.1984 is
seen to have given away his rights over the said pump to the
2025:KER:69578
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
second accused herein. It is also alleged that the signature of
the defacto complainant herein was forged without his
knowledge and the forged deed has been used as a genuine deed
by accused No.1 and 2 for opening account in State Bank of
Travancore, Vaikom branch in the name of both of them and the
profits from the petrol pump has been appropriated by accused
No.1 and 2 without sharing the same with the defacto
complainant herein thereby committing offences under section
465, 467, 471, 474, 477 read with section 34 of Indian Penal
Code.
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution adduced
evidence as PWs 1 to 8. Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on his side.
Ext.D1 is marked on the side of the defence. After going
through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that
the accused are not guilty and they were acquitted under
Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by the acquittal order, the petitioner who is
the defacto complainant filed an appeal before the Sessions
Court, Kottayam. The Additional Sessions Judge-II (Special),
Kottayam considered the appeal. The Sessions Judge, after
2025:KER:69578
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
confirmed the acquittal order. Aggrieved by the same, this
revision petition is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently
found that the accused have not committed any offence and they
were acquitted. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
concurrent finding of acquittal is very limited. Even then,
because of the persuasive argument of the counsel for the
petitioner, this Court perused the impugned judgments and the
available records. I am of the considered opinion that there is
nothing to interfere with the acquittal order. The trial court and
the appellate court considered the matter in detail. This Court
cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a revision against the
acquittal.
There is no merit in this revision petition and hence it is
dismissed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
2025:KER:69578
CRL.REV.PET NO. 684 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 684/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN
C.C.NO. 671 OF 2019 DATED 16.05.2019 ON
THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, VAIKOM
Annexure 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CRL.
APPEAL NO.158 OF 2023 DATED 14.02.2023
ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II (SPECIAL),
KOTTAYAM
