Kerala High Court
Santhosh.T.V vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.R.P.No. 3728 of 2006
..1..
2025:KER:71081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3728 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.08.2006 IN Crl.A NO.104 OF 2006
OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 31.01.2006 IN CC NO.54 OF 2004 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS-I, PERAMBRA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH.T.V.
S/O.NARAYANAN, THARAVATTATHU HOUSE,
MUTHUVANNACHA, AMSOM DESOM,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.ASOKAN
SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SHO PERAMBRA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No. 3728 of 2006
..2..
2025:KER:71081
ORDER
This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging
the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence in a
prosecution under Sections 354 and 506(i) of the Indian
Penal Code,1860 (for short, 'the IPC').
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.54
of 2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-I, Perambra (for short, 'the trial court'). He faced trial
for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506(i) of
the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that on 27.12.2003
at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioner luring to show wild hen,
took the victim aged nine years to the forest area about 75
metres away from her house and outraged her modesty by
inserting his hand inside her jacket and skirt. It is further
alleged that the petitioner threatened the victim to kill her if
she disclosed the incident to anyone.
..3..
2025:KER:71081
4. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 7 were examined
and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. After trial, the trial court
found the petitioner guilty under Sections 354 and 506(i) of
the IPC and he was convicted for the said offences. He was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for
the offence under Section 354 of IPC and rigorous
imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section
506(i) of the IPC. The sentence was ordered to run
concurrently. The petitioner challenged the conviction and
sentence of the trial court before the Sessions Court,
Kozhikode (for short, 'the appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.
104 of 2006. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This
revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of
the trial court as well as the appellate court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
..4..
2025:KER:71081
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the conviction of the petitioner was based on the solitary
evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW1 and a
close scrutiny of her evidence would show that her evidence
is not wholly reliable. The learned counsel further submitted
that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1. The
learned counsel also submitted that there was a delay of 15
days in registering the FIR and the said delay has not been
satisfactorily explained. On the other hand, the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict
handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court
and argued that the necessary ingredients of Sections 354
and 506(i) of the IPC had been established and the
prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond
reasonable doubt.
7. PW1 is the victim. PW2 is the mother of PW1. PW3
is the neighbour of PW1. PW4 is the father of PW1. PW5 is
..5..
2025:KER:71081
the doctor who examined PW1 and issued Ext.P2 certificate.
PW6 is the attestor of Ext.P3 scene mahazar and PW7 is the
police officer who recorded the FI statement, registered the
case and conducted the investigation.
8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of
PW1, the victim to prove the incident and to fix the culpability
on the accused. Ext.P1 FI statement given by PW1 was
marked through her. PW3 is the neighbour of PW1. She used
to impart tuition to PW1. PW1 deposed that on 27/12/2003 at
2:00 p.m., she went to the house of PW3, and at that time,
the petitioner, who was residing nearby, was there in that
house. She further deposed that the petitioner, along with the
daughter of PW3, went to the nearby forest and she, along
with one Arjun, who is the nephew of the husband of PW3,
followed them. Thereafter, the petitioner took her and Arjun
inside the forest, telling that he would show them a wild hen.
After a short time, Arjun along with the daughter of PW3
..6..
2025:KER:71081
went back to the house. When she was alone, the petitioner
inserted his hands inside her blouse and panties. She further
deposed that petitioner tightened a wild creeper on her neck
and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to her
parents. She further deposed that thereafter she went to the
house of PW3 and disclosed the incident to her.
9. The evidence given by PW1 is in tune with her
Ext.P1 statement. Even though PW1 was cross examined in
length, nothing tangible could be extracted from her
testimony to discredit her version. The learned counsel for
the petitioner highlighted certain contradictions in the
evidence of PW1. Those contradictions are minor in nature
and do not affect the fabric of the prosecution case. Both the
trial court as well as the appellate court have believed the
evidence of PW1. I also see no reason to disbelieve her
evidence.
10. It is true that there is a delay of 15 days in giving
..7..
2025:KER:71081
Ext.P1 FI statement. It is well settled that a delay is fatal only
if no explanation is given for the delay. The reason for the
delay has been well explained in Ext.P1 as well as in the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2. According to PWs 1 and 2, they
thought that if PW4 was informed about the incident, he
would create problems, and therefore they tried to conceal it.
However, PW4 came to know about the incident by other
means, and thereupon he took PW1 and PW2 to the police
station. I see no reason to disbelieve the explanation offered
by PW1. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that PWs 1,
2 and 4 have foisted a false case against the petitioner. That
apart, it has also come out in evidence that immediately after
the incident, PW1 had told PW2 about the incident.
11. It is settled that the revisional jurisdiction under
Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation
of evidence. It is only if the decision rendered by the
..8..
2025:KER:71081
appellate court and the trial court can be said to be either
perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke such
powers. I have carefully gone through the entire records,
evidence, proceedings and the judgments of the appellate
court and the trial court. I find no impropriety or illegality
therein warranting interference on the finding of conviction
under the exercise of revisional powers vested with this
Court. The sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed
by the appellate court also appears to be very reasonable.
There is no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition and
accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
APA/AS
