[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Leela & Anr vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2026
2026:KER:15507
Crl.R.P.No.2292/2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2292 OF 2007
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2007 IN Crl.A NO.904 OF 2005
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2005 IN CC NO.1116 OF 2001 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 LEELA & ANR.
THACHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEECHI VILLAGE,, CHEENIKKADAVU
DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 MOLLY
D/O.PAULOSE, W/O FRANCIS,, KOZHIPPADAN HOUSE, PEECHI
VILLAGE,, CHEENIKKADAVU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.A.C.DEVY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SANAL P. RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15507
Crl.R.P.No.2292/2007
2
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III, Thrissur, and the Additional Sessions Court (ADHOC),Fast
Track, Thrissur, in C.C.No.1116/2001 and Crl.Appeal No.904/2005
respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the
commission of offences under Sections 447 and 324 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, are under challenge in this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that on 26.07.2001 at about 5.00
p.m, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention,
criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the residence of PW2, and
inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW1 by hitting with a wooden log and
biting upon his right forefinger and right forearm. The second petitioner
is also alleged to have wrongfully restrained PW1. With regard to the
above incident, the Sub Inspector of Police, Peechi, filed the Final
Report alleging the commission of offences under Sections 447, 341 and
324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, eight witnesses
were examined as PW1 to PW8, and three documents were marked as
2026:KER:15507
3
Exts.P1 to P3. From the part of the accused, two witnesses were
examined as DW1 and DW2. It is after analysing the aforesaid
evidence that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the
petitioners committed the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341
and 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the petitioners were
sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for two months each under Section 447 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for
one month each under Section 341 IPC, and Simple Imprisonment for
six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section
324 IPC. In the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court, Thrissur,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III (ADHOC), who considered the
appeal, found that the offence under Section 341 IPC is not brought out
in evidence. However, the conviction and sentence awarded by the
learned Magistrate for the commission of offence under Sections 447
and 324 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, were upheld by the Appellate Court.
Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the
petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
2026:KER:15507
4
5. Among the three witnesses examined from the part of the
prosecution as PW1 to PW3, PW1, the injured, testified before the Trial
Court in clear and consistent terms about the criminal acts attributed
against the petitioners. However, PW2 and PW3 did not fully support
the prosecution case. Arguments were advanced before the Trial Court
as well as before the Appellate Court to the effect that PW1 had
attempted to assault the first accused in an inebriated stage, and that
the acts done by the petitioners in self defence have been termed as
the criminal offences alleged in this case. A further contention was also
raised before the courts below that the delay of about two days in
lodging the First Information Statement would defeat the sanctity of the
prosecution case. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3, who did not fully
support the prosecution case, were also relied on by the defence in
support of their contention that the petitioners are not liable to be
proceeded against for the offences alleged against them. All those
challenges have been repelled by the Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court on the basis of sound judicial reasons. There is
absolutely no reason for this Court to interfere with the concurrent
findings on facts of the courts below, arrived at by relying on the
2026:KER:15507
5
evidence on records. Needless to say, the conviction of the petitioner
for the commission of the offences under Sections 447 and 324 IPC by
the Appellate Court, is not liable to be unsettled in this revision.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that the term of Simple Imprisonment of six months
imposed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court for the offence under
Section 324 IPC, is liable to be reduced to Simple Imprisonment for
three months.
Subject to the above modification in the sentence, the revision
stands disposed of as follows:
1)The concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the
petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 447 and
324 IPC, are hereby upheld.
2)In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the
petitioners are sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for three
months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees One Thousand only)
under Section 324 IPC and Simple Imprisonment for two months
under Section 447 IPC.
2026:KER:15507
6
3)In default of payment of fine as directed above, the petitioners
will undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further term of one
month each.
4)The substantial sentence of Simple Imprisonment awarded for the
offences under Sections 447 and 324 IPC will run concurrently.
5)The petitioners shall surrender before the Trial Court for
undergoing the revised sentence awarded by this Court within a
period of 30 days from today
Registry shall forward the case records along with a copy of this order, to
the Trial Court for enforcement of the revised sentence.
sd/
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
