[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
P.P.Soman vs Mohanan on 13 February, 2026
2026:KER:13041
Crl.R.P No.514/2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 514 OF 2007
AGAINST Crl.A NO.47 OF 2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT NO.2, PATHANAMTHITTA IN CC NO.399 OF
2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANNI
REVISION PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
P.P.SOMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.PAPPU,
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMBRAKUZHIYIL,
PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.
BY ADV SRI.V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & STATE/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 MOHANAN, S/O PAPPU, AGED 48 YEARS,
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMBRAKUZHIYIL,
PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.
2 MANI, W/O.MOHANAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMBRAKUZHIYIL,
PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.
3 STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADV SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13041
Crl.R.P No.514/2007 2
ORDER
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast
Track-II, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A No.47/2004, altering the conviction in
C.C No.399/2000 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, to
one under Section 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, and reducing the
punishment to fine Rs.1,000/-, the de facto complainant in the said case
has filed this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.04.2000 at about 4:30
p.m, the accused/respondents 1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the
landed property of the de facto complainant and inflicted voluntary hurt
and grievous hurt upon him by beating with sticks and hitting with
stones. The respondents 1 and 2 are also alleged to have destroyed the
cultivations in that property and committed mischief causing loss to the
tune of Rs.500/- to the de facto complainant. The S.I of Police,
Perinadu had filed the final report alleging the offences under Sections
447, 324, 326 and 427 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C, in connection with the
above incident.
2026:KER:13041
Crl.R.P No.514/2007 3
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, eight witnesses
were examined as PW1 to PW8, and five documents were marked as
Exts.P1 to P5 from the part of the prosecution. The second accused
tendered evidence as DW1 and brought on record three documents as
Exts.D1 to D3. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence, that the
learned Magistrate found the respondents 1 and 2 guilty of all the
offences charged against them. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2
were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months under
Section 447 I.P.C, rigorous imprisonment for six months each under
Sections 324 and 427 I.P.C, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and
fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 326 I.P.C. A default clause of simple
imprisonment for three months was provided for non-payment of fine.
4. Aggrieved by the above verdict of the Trial Court, the
respondents 1 and 2 preferred appeal before the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered
the above appeal, found that the offences under Sections 447, 427 and
326 I.P.C are not brought out from the evidence adduced by the
prosecution. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded by the
Trial Court for the aforesaid offences were set aside by the Appellate
2026:KER:13041
Crl.R.P No.514/2007 4
Court. The Appellate Court also limited the sentence for the offence
under Section 324 I.P.C found to have been committed by respondents 1
and 2, to fine Rs.1,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment
for one month. It is the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, which
is under challenge in this revision, at the instance of the de facto
complainant/PW1.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the
learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, and the learned Public
Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The Appellate Court, after discussing the evidence pertaining
to the civil case between the parties as revealed by Exts.D2 and D3, and
also the paucity of evidence pointing to the possession of the property
concerned by the de facto complainant, came to the conclusion that the
criminal trespass attributed against the respondents 1 and 2 is not
brought out in the case. So also, the Appellate Court relied on Ext.P2
scene mahazar and observed that there was no symptom of any
cultivation having been destroyed or damaged, and hence the offence of
mischief, as envisaged under Section 427 I.P.C, is not brought out. As
regards the offence under Section 326 I.P.C, the Appellate Court, upon
2026:KER:13041
Crl.R.P No.514/2007 5
an evaluation of the evidence on record, held that the mere loosening of
tooth of PW1 without any injury to the lips, can only show that there
was no grievous hurt suffered by PW1 as a result of the alleged assault
of respondents 1 and 2. Accordingly, it was concluded by the Appellate
Court that the only offence attracted in the facts and circumstances of
the case was Section 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. The aforesaid evaluation
of the evidence by the Appellate Court, cannot be termed as perverse.
On the other hand, the Appellate Court is seen to have appreciated the
evidence on record in the correct perspective, and came to the
conclusion about the actual offence brought out from the evidence.
Therefore, there is absolutely no scope for interference in revision with
the aforesaid findings of the Appellate Court.
7. As regards the sentence, the Appellate Court found that a
fine of Rs.1,000/- would meet the purpose of awarding punishment, in
view of the relationship between the parties, who are siblings, and also
taking into account the fact that the property dispute involved was the
root cause of the offence. It is true that Section 354(4) Cr.P.C requires
the Court to record its reasons for imposing a sentence of a term of less
than three months where the conviction is for an offence punishable
2026:KER:13041
Crl.R.P No.514/2007 6
with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, unless the sentence
is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. As far as the present
case is concerned, the Appellate Court has recorded the close
relationship between the parties, and the existence of civil disputes
between them as the reason for limiting the sentence to fine alone. It is
categorically stated thereunder that it is a fit case in which justice can
be rendered by the imposition of fine Rs.1,000/- each. Here also, the
reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court for awarding a lesser
punishment of fine alone, cannot be termed as perverse or blatantly
illegal. That being so, there is absolutely no scope for interference in
revision with the findings of the Appellate Court in the impugned
judgment.
In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
