[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
T.Kumaran Nair vs S.H.O.Kasaragod on 3 February, 2026
2026:KER:9117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO.418 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2005 IN C.C.NO.703 OF 2003
OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2006 IN Crl.A NO.315 OF 2005
OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
T.KUMARAN NAIR
S/O.M.KELU NAIR, RESIDING AT BARATHODU HOUSE,
PERUMBALA VILLAGE, CHEMMANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KASARAGOD.
BY ADV.
SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
SHO KASARAGOD
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV.
SRI SUDHEER G., PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:9117
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.418 of 2007
-2-
G. GIRISH, J.
----------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.418 of 2007
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner suffered the concurrent conviction for the
commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC from the Trial
Court and the Appellate Court. The allegation against him in
C.C.No.703 of 2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Kasaragod, was that he committed the offence under Section
324 IPC by hitting PW1 with an iron rod at about 9.15 am on
17.01.2003. As a result of the aforesaid assault, PW1 is said to have
sustained injuries upon his forearm and scalp. The learned
Magistrate by the judgment rendered on 25.10.2005, convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine
Rs.1,000/-. The Sessions Court, Kasaragod, in Crl.A.No.315 of 2005,
confirmed the above conviction, but reduced the sentence to Simple
Imprisonment for three months and fine Rs.2,000/-. It is aggrieved
2026:KER:9117
by the above verdict of the courts below that the petitioner is here
before this Court with this revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. Among the eight witnesses examined by the prosecution
before the Trial Court, the learned Magistrate relied on the
testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 towards arriving at the finding that the
prosecution successfully established the occurrence of the offence
alleged in this case. The Appellate Court also made a re-evaluation
of the above evidence and found that the prosecution was successful
in establishing the commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC.
As rightly observed by the courts below, the evidence on record
clearly points to the physical assault mounted upon PW1 by the
accused, leading to injuries upon his body. However, there is no
explanation offered by the Investigating Agency why the weapon of
offence could not be recovered. It is true that the recovery of the
weapon of offence is not an inevitable requirement in every case
where the offender is prosecuted for inflicting hurt upon the victim.
2026:KER:9117
But the prosecution owes a responsibility to explain the reasons
which prevented the Investigating Agency from recovering the above
weapon and to produce it before the court. As far as the present
case is concerned, it appears that there is no plausible explanation
offered by the Investigating Agency for its failure to recover the iron
rod said to have been used by the accused to inflict injuries upon the
body of PW1. For the offence under Section 324 IPC to be
attracted, it has to be shown that the offender has used a dangerous
weapon, or an object, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death. Unless the prosecution is able to show that the iron rod
alleged to have been used by the petitioner was either a dangerous
weapon, or an object, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 324
IPC is brought out. However, the evidence on record clearly points to
the fact that the petitioner has inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1,
and hence the offence under Section 323 IPC is clearly established
from the evidence on record. Therefore, the conviction awarded by
the courts below is liable to be altered as one under Section 323 IPC
2026:KER:9117
and the sentence to be reduced accordingly. Having regard to the
nature of the offence involved in this case as well as the elapse of
more than two decades from the date of commission of the crime,
I am of the view that the prison term of sentence has to be
excluded, if the petitioner is ready to pay a modest amount as
compensation to the injured / defacto complainant / PW1. Subject
to the above modification, the revision petition is disposed of as
follows :-
(i) The conviction of the petitioner for the
commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC, is
hereby set aside.
(ii) The petitioner / accused is convicted for the
commission of the offence under Section 323 IPC.
(iii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by
the Appellate Court, the petitioner / accused is
sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court
under Section 323 IPC with a further direction to pay
compensation Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
2026:KER:9117
to PW1 / defacto complainant under Section 357(3)
Cr.P.C.
(iv) In the event of non-payment of the
compensation as directed above, the petitioner will
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a term of three
months.
(v) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial
Court within a period of 30 days from today to undergo
the modified sentence imposed by this order and to
make payment of the compensation as directed in this
order.
The Registry shall transmit the case records along with a copy
of this order to the Trial Court for enforcement of the sentence
awarded by this order.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/03.02.2026
