Chandran vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1450 Ker

Kerala High Court

Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2026

                                                          2026:KER:12213
Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​     ​    ​     1



                IN THE HIGH Court OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

  WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947

                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 1041 OF 2007

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.08.2006 IN Crl.A NO.81 OF

2003 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-II,

PATHANAMTHITTA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2003 IN

SC NO.24 OF 1998 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

                CHANDRAN, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, NIRAVIL VEEDU,
                VALUPARA,, KOODAL MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA.

                BY ADV SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

                STATE OF KERALA​
                CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION,,
                (CRIME NO.171/1996 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION),
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH Court OF,
                KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

                SRI RENJIT GEORGE, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                               2026:KER:12213
Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​   ​    ​     2




                                    ORDER

The concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section

326 I.P.C of the Assistant Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and Additional

Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta in S.C No.24/1998

and Crl.A No.81/2003 respectively, are under challenge in this revision

filed at the instance of the accused in the aforesaid case.

2.​ The prosecution case is that on 06.09.1996 at about 6:00

p.m, the petitioner splashed acid upon the face of PW8 causing serious

burn injuries including the privation of the right eye sight. The reason

for the assault is said to be the enmity which the petitioner nurtured

with PW8 due to the act of PW8 who maintained illicit relationship with

PW7 who is the half sister of the petitioner. In connection with the

above incident, the Circle Inspector of Police, Konni laid the final report

alleging the commission of offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

3.​ In the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the

prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13, and brought on

record 14 documents as Exts.P1 to P14. The petitioner did not opt to

adduce any defence evidence. After analysing the above evidence, the 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 3

Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty of commission of

offence under Section 326 I.P.C and convicted him thereunder. The

petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three

years and fine Rs.10,000/- with a default clause of rigorous

imprisonment for one year. Though the petitioner challenged the

aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who

considered the appeal concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and

dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. It is

aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below that the

petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

4.​ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the

learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5.​ Among the witnesses examined from the part of the

prosecution, PW1 and PW2, the independent witnesses turned hostile

and discredited the prosecution story. However, PW7, the lady with

whom the injured (PW8) was said to be having relationship, supported

the prosecution case. So also, PW8 tendered evidence, narrating the

incident in clear and convincing terms. In addition to that, the medical

evidence let in by the prosecution through the examination of PW9 and 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 4

PW13, the Doctors who treated PW8, corroborated the nature of burn

injuries sustained by PW8. It is by relying on the aforesaid evidence,

that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found the petitioner guilty

of Section 326 I.P.C, and proceeded with the conviction and sentence.

6.​ The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not have relied on the

interested testimonies of PW7 and PW8 towards finding the guilt of the

accused. It is further pointed out that the independent witnesses

examined as PW1 and PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution, and that

the prosecution did not examine the other available independent

witness, who was cited as CW3 in the final report. I am not inclined to

accept the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to

displace the concurrent findings of the Courts below. It is well settled

that the mere interestedness of the witnesses is not a ground to eschew

their evidence, if it is found otherwise trustworthy. As far as the present

case is concerned, the Courts below, after analysing the evidence of

PW7 and PW8, arrived at the categoric finding that those witnesses are

trustworthy and reliable. In the above circumstances, the 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 5

non-examination of CW3 or the conduct of PW1 and PW2 turning

hostile, are of no consequence.

7.​ Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner to assail the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts

below is that there was inordinate delay of three days in lodging the

first information statement, and hence the entire prosecution is vitiated.

There is absolutely no merit in the aforesaid argument of the learned

counsel for the petitioner. The Trial Court has rightly observed in the

impugned judgment that the delay which occasioned in the above

regard has been satisfactorily explained. The fact that the injured, who

was admitted in a local Government Hospital immediately after the

crime, was later on shifted to the Medical College Hospital,

Thiruvananthapuram, and the omission of the authorities of the first

hospital to give intimation to the police about the crime, has been taken

note of by the Trial Court as convincing reason for the delay in

intimating the crime to the police. There is absolutely no reason to

interfere with the aforesaid finding of the Courts below.

8.​ One of the main challenges raised by the petitioner against

the findings of the Courts below is that neither the container of the acid 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 6

nor the dresses worn by the injured at the time of commission of the

crime, were recovered by the investigating agency, and hence the

criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is vitiated due to

the above shortcomings. Here also, it is not possible to accept the

argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the recovery of

the material object used for the commission of the crime is not an

inevitable requirement to arrive at a finding as to the offence under

Section 326 I.P.C, if there is other convincing evidence pointing to the

nature of the weapon or the object or substance used by the accused

for the act of causing grievous hurt upon the victim. In the case on

hand, the prosecution has adduced evidence regarding the efforts made

by the investigating agency to recover the container and remnants of

the acid used by the petitioner for the commission of the crime. It is

stated that the above items could not be recovered since the petitioner

had disposed of the same in the forests. The prosecution had also

adduced evidence about the search conducted at the residence of the

petitioner towards recovering the material objects. Since the Courts

below relied on the other evidence adduced by the prosecution about

the mode of assault of the petitioner and the acid used for inflicting 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 7

burn injuries upon the face of PW8, it is not possible to dislodge the

findings of the Courts below for the reason that the investigating agency

was not able to recover the material objects. The non-recovery of the

dress of the victim at the time of offence, cannot be termed as a factor

which would vitiate the prosecution case since the Courts below reposed

confidence upon the other evidence adduced by the prosecution in

support of the offence alleged against the petitioner.

9.​ The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

prosecution failed to establish the motive for the commission of the

crime, and the Courts below failed to take note of the above anomaly.

The argument in the above regard is also untenable since it could be

seen from the impugned judgments of the Courts below that the enmity

which the petitioner nurtured against the injured in connection with the

illicit relationship of the injured with PW7, the half-sister of the

petitioner, has been considered as the reason which prompted the

petitioner to mount acid attack upon the injured. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution evidence would

disclose that the petitioner had consented for the marriage between the

injured and PW7, and hence, it cannot be said that he was having 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 8

enmity with the injured. It is not possible to draw any such conclusions

over and above the precise evidence tendered by PW7 and PW8 that

the petitioner was against their relationship and that he was in inimical

terms with them since he disliked their relationship. The findings in the

above regard cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional

powers of this Court.

10.​ Another challenge raised by the petitioner is that the

non-examination of CW15, who conducted a part of the investigation in

this case, was fatal to the prosecution case. Here also, it is not possible

to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner since

the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the examination of

PW11 and PW12 was found to have been sufficient by the Courts below

to bring home the particulars of investigation and the evidence gathered

by the investigating agency. Thus, it has to be concluded that the

challenge in this revision against the concurrent findings of the Courts

below that the petitioner committed offence under Section 326 I.P.C, is

bereft of merit.

11.​ Coming to the sentence awarded by the Courts below, it is

seen that the rigorous imprisonment of three years imposed upon the 2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 9

petitioner, is to a certain extent, a little bit excessive. The fact that the

incident involved in this case took place about three decades ago, also

compels me to reduce the tenure of rigorous imprisonment awarded by

the Courts below as penalty for the offence committed by the petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

view that the tenure of sentence of imprisonment awarded in this case

is liable to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Subject to

the above modification in the sentence, the revision is disposed of as

follows:

i)​ The concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the

petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 326 I.P.C, are

hereby upheld.

ii)​ While retaining the fine portion of the sentence awarded by

the Courts below as such, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment

awarded for the offence committed by the petitioner, is reduced to

rigorous imprisonment for one year.

iii)​ All other directions pertaining to the default clause, and

payment of the fine amount to PW8, in the judgments rendered by the

Courts below, are also retained as such.

2026:KER:12213 Crl.R.P No.1041/2007​ ​ ​ ​ 10

The Registry shall transmit the copy of this order along with case

records to the Trial Court for the immediate enforcement of the

sentence.

       ​      ​       ​   ​   ​    ​     ​     ​     (sd/-)

                                             G. GIRISH, JUDGE


jsr