[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TH
FRIDAY, THE 13
DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA,
1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2450 OF 2010
JUDGMENT
DATED
15.06.2010
IN
Crl.A
NO.89
OF
2010
OF
3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA
JUDGMENT
DATED
22.02.2010
IN
CC
NO.445
OF
2007
OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
HAJI
S
S/O JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS,
KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE,, KULAMAVU KARA,
ARAKULAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.S.RAJEEV
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.148/2007 OF KANJAR,, IDUKKI
DISTRICT).
SRI SUDHEER G., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS
CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION HAVING
COME
UP
FOR
INAL
F HEARING
ON
13.02.2026, THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13418
Crl.R.P No.2450/2010
2
ORDER
The petitioner is the accusedinCCNo.445/2007onthefilesofthe
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I,Thodupuzha,acaserelatingtothe
commission ofoffencesunderSections294(b),509and506(i)IPC,which
arose out of Crime No.148/2007 of Kanjar Police Station. The learned
Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the commission of
offences under Sections 294(b) and 509 IPC and acquitted him for the
offence under Section 506(i) IPC. He was sentenced to Simple
ImprisonmentforsixmonthseachunderSections294(b)and509IPC. In
the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court,Thodupuzha,thelearned
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc I), Thodupuzha, who considered the
appeal, confirmed the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under
Sections 294(b) and 509 IPC, but modified the sentence by reducingthe
prisontermtoSimpleImprisonmentforthreemonthseach. Aggrievedby
the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here
before this Court with this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that on 13.04.2007 at about 12.45
pm, while PW1 was presiding over a meeting of Kudumbasree, the
petitioner interfered with the above meeting and uttered obscene words
2026:KER:13418
Crl.R.P No.2450/2010
3
and made obscene gestures with the intention to insult her modesty. It
was further alleged that the petitioner criminally intimidated PW1 at that
time. Inconnectionwiththeaboveincident,theSIofPolice,Kanjar,filed
Final Report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 294(b),
509 and 506(i) IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
4. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined7witnessesasPW1toPW7andbroughtonrecord3documents
asExts.P1toP3. Itisafteranalysingtheaboveevidencethatthelearned
Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully
establishedthecommissionofoffencesunderSections294(b)and509IPC
by the petitioner. The Trial Court placed heavy reliance upon the
testimonies of PW1 to PW3 towards arriving into the aforesaid findings.
The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the aforesaid evidence and
came to the conclusion that the finding of the learned Magistrate about
the commission of offences by the petitionerisnotliabletobeinterfered
with in the appeal.
5. Having regard to the materials on record and also the
reasonings adopted by the courtsbelowintheimpugnedjudgment,Iam
2026:KER:13418
Crl.R.P No.2450/2010
4
of the view that the concurrent findings on fact about the acts of the
accused constitutingoffencesunderSections294(b)and509IPC,arenot
liable to be interfered with in exercise of the revisional powers of this
Court. Thus, it has to be concluded that the conviction of thepetitioner
for the commission of the offences under Sections509and294(b)IPCis
liable to be upheld.
6. Asregardsthesentenceawardedbythecourtsbelow,Iamof
the view that the prison term of Simple Imprisonment for three months
awarded by the Appellate Court is excessive in the nature and gravity of
the offence found to have been committed by the petitioner. Having
regardtotheentirefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,Iamoftheview
that the aforesaid sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months
awardedbytheAppellateCourtisliabletobereducedtoimprisonmenttill
therisingofCourtwithafurtherdirectiontopaycompensationRs.5,000/-
to the defacto complainant/PW1. Subject to the above modifications, the
revision stands disposed of as follows:-
(i) The concurrent findings of the courts below,
convicting the petitioner for the commission of the offences
under Sections 294(b) and 509 IPC, are hereby upheld.
(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded under
2026:KER:13418
Crl.R.P No.2450/2010
5
Section 509 IPC, the petitioner/accused is sentenced to
imprisonmenttilltherisingofCourtwithafurtherdirectionto
pay compensation Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to
the defacto complainant / PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
(iii) No separate sentence is awarded for the
commission of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC.
(iv) In default of payment of compensation as
directed above, the petitioner will undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a further term of three months.
(v) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial
Court within a period of 30 days from today to undergo the
imprisonmenttilltherisingofCourtawardedinthisorderand
to make payment of the compensation as directed by this
order.
The Registry shall transmit the relevant case records, along with a
copy of this order, to the Trial Court forthwith for enforcing the revised
sentence.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP
