Kerala High Court
Mariyappan vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
Crl.R.P No.186/2016
-1-
2025:KER:70408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 186 OF 2016
CRIME NO.159/2004 OF VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2015 IN CRL.A NO.93 OF 2014 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-IV, THODUPUZHA, ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 11.04.2014 IN CC NO.53 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,
PEERMEDU.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
MARIYAPPAN
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. KANIYAPPAN, RESIDING AT 2ND DIVISION LAYAM,
WALADIE KARA PERIYAR VILLAGE, PEERMADU TALUK, IDUKKI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.K.AKHIL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ROHITH.R. FOR PETITIONER, SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN.U-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P No.186/2016
-2-
2025:KER:70408
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
========================
Crl.R.P.No.186 of 2016
===================================
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction
and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section
427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for
short) and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PDPP Act' for
short).
2. The revision petitioner is the 1 st accused in CC
No.53/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Peermade. He stood trial before that court for committing the
offences punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 of IPC, and Section 3(2)
(e) of the PDPP Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 07.10.2004, at
about 8.20 p.m, at a place called Vandiperiyar Town, the accused,
three in number, in furtherance of their common intention, damaged
2025:KER:70408
the headlight, and the windshield of a KSRTC bus, bearing No. TP 887
parked on the road side and caused loss to the tune of Rs.4,276/-.
4. During the pendency of the case before the trial
court, the 2nd and 3rd accused absconded. The trial court, on an
elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found the 1 st
accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section
427 r/w 34 IPC, and Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act, and convicted
him thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act, with a default clause. No
separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 427 IPC,
since the ingredients of the said offence are the same as that of
Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act.
5. The 1st accused carried the matter in appeal by
filing Crl. Appl No.93/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court-IV,
Thodupuzha. The said court, by judgment dated 06.11.2015,
dismissed the appeal.
6. Heard Sri. Rohith.R., the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri. Jayakrishnan.U., the learned Public
2025:KER:70408
Prosecutor. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the both trial court and the appellate court have not
appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective and has arrived at a
wrong conclusion of guilt against the 1st accused. He argued that the
evidence of PW1 is mired with contradictions and his identification of
the accused after about 5 years is not at all believable. He also
submitted that, in any event, if this Court upholds the findings of
guilt, the sentence imposed on the accused may be reduced.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the
impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to
interfere with the same.
9. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the
evidence of PW1 and PW3, who are the eye witnesses. PW1 was the
conductor of the bus, at the relevant time. His evidence shows that
on 07.10.2004, at about 8.30 p.m, when the bus reached Vandiperiyar
Town, the Police officials informed that some political rally is staged
in the Town and directed them to park the bus on the side of the
road. The bus was thus parked near the Police Station, and all the
2025:KER:70408
passengers alighted. At that time, a group of persons came near the
bus, and pelted stones damaging the windshield and headlight. They
also hit on the body of the bus using sticks. It is very relevant to note
that PW1 has positively identified 1st and 3rd accused in the dock as
the miscreants. It is also relevant to note that, even though PW1 has
been cross-examined in extenso, no material contradictions have
been brought out.
10. It is to be seen that, apart from the evidence of
PW1, the evidence of PW3, who was the Police Constable attached to
Vandiperiyar Police Station, and who was present at the scene of
crime, has also given evidence in tandem with PW1. PW3 also
identified 1st and 3rd accused in the court, and stated that he is having
acquaintance with the 1st accused, since the 1st accused was a
Panchayat Member at that time.
11. As regards the contention of the accused regarding
identification of the accused by PW1, I find no merit in it. The
evidence of PW1, clearly shows that he had time and opportunity to
see the accused in close quarters, and at that time, light was
emanating from the bus. Further, the evidence of PW3, who is well
2025:KER:70408
acquainted with the 1st accused, also supports the evidence of PW1,
and shows that the 1st accused is one of the culprits involved in the
attack. Both the trial court and the appellate court have relied upon
the testimony of PW1 and PW3 in these aspects and I do not find any
reason to take a different view. In the light of afore discussions, I do
not find any illegality or irregularity in the appreciation of evidence
by the trial court and the appellate court and in reaching a
conclusion of guilt against the accused.
12. Now, coming to the question of sentence, it is to be
seen that, Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act, prescribes a minimum term
of sentence, which is rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months, and it can extend to five years with fine. But it is also
provided that, the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the
judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than
six months. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the
fact that no one was injured, the weapons used, the fact that the
accused is aged around 50 years, the fact that he was a Panchayat
Member, and chances for reformation, I am of the view that the
sentence imposed can be modified and reduced to less than six
2025:KER:70408
months. Considering all the afore factors, I am thus of the view that
leniency can be shown and the sentence can be reduced to one of
imprisonment for a period which the accused has already undergone,
under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. But I am also of the view that
the revision petitioner/accused can be ordered to pay a
compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the KSRTC under Section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C., and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed in
part, as follows:
i) The conviction of the revision petitioner/ 1 st accused
under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act and Section 427
r/w 34 IPC in CC No.53/2009 by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Peermade, and as confirmed in
Criminal Appeal No.93/2014 by the Additional Sessions
Court-IV, Thodupuzha, is upheld.
ii) The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/ 1 st
accused is modified and reduced to one of
imprisonment for a period already undergone by him,
2025:KER:70408
under Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act.
iii) The revision petitioner/ 1st accused is also ordered to
pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
thousand only) to the KSRTC under Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C. and in case of default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
iv) The revision petitioner/ 1st accused shall appear before
the trial court on 20.11.2025 to receive the sentence
and pay/deposit the compensation as ordered above.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
JS
