[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kuttayi @ Michael vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2026
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 1
IN THE HIGH Court OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3421 OF 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
17.01.2006 IN CC NO.636 OF 2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS, ALATHUR AS CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DATED 22.01.2009 IN Crl.A NO.54 OF 2006 OF II
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KUTTAYI @ MICHAEL
S/O. CHERIYAN, KAKKANADU VEEDU,, KADAPPARA, MEMALA,
MANGALAM DAM,PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25.02.2026, THE COURT ON 27.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 2
ORDER
The concurrent conviction and sentence in C.C No.636/2001 of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur and Crl.A No.54/2006
of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad, are under challenge in
this revision petition filed by the accused in the aforesaid case. The
offence proved against the petitioner are under Sections 452 and 326
I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that on 21.05.2001 at about 2:15
p.m, the petitioner criminally trespassed into the dwelling house of
PW1 and PW2, and inflicted voluntary grievous hurt upon PW2 by
hacking with a chopper upon his right leg and left arm. The
proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in the final report
filed by the S.I of Police, Mangalam Dam.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7, and brought on record four
documents as Exts.P1 to P4. The weapon of offence used for the
commission of the crime was identified and marked as MO1. Three
documents were marked from the part of the accused as Exts.D1 to
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 3
D3. After analysing the above evidence, the learned Magistrate came
to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the
offence under SectionS 452 and 326 I.P.C, and accordingly, convicted
the petitioner. A sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years
each was imposed for the commission of the aforesaid offences. In
addition to that, the petitioner was directed to pay compensation
Rs.20,000/- to PW2. A default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six
months was provided for non payment of compensation. The
substantive sentence of imprisonment under Sections 452 and 326
I.P.C was ordered to run concurrently. Though the petitioner
challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Appellate Court, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge who considered the appeal, declined
to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the
appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction recorded and sentence
awarded by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the above
concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is here before
this Court with this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 4
5. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court relied on the
evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2, to arrive at the conclusion that
the prosecution has successfully established the accusation that the
petitioner criminally trespassed into the dwelling house of PW1 and
PW2, and mounted physical assault upon PW2 by hacking with a
chopper. PW1, who is the wife of PW2, tendered evidence in clear and
consistent terms as that of the evidence tendered by PW1, who
suffered grievous hurt as a result of the crime. In addition to the
above evidence, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found
the evidence of PW3, the landlord of PW1 and PW2, as convincing and
corroborating the evidence of PW1 and PW2, to a certain extent.
6. One of the main challenges raised by the petitioner was
the delay of two days in lodging the first information statement. The
trial Court as well as the Appellate Court found the reason stated by
PW2 for the above delay as convincing and satisfactory. The medical
emergency which compelled PW1 to take PW2 to the Medical College
Hospital at Thrissur, and from there to a private hospital, and the
admission of PW2 at the ICU of the private hospital, was stated as the
reason why PW1 was not able to immediately report the crime to the
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 5
police. There is absolutely no reason to think that the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court erroneously accepted the above reason for the
delay in lodging the first information statement.
7. Another ground raised by the petitioner to assail his
conviction and sentence is that the prosecution has not explained the
injuries sustained by him. The contention in the above regard was
also rejected by the Courts below for cogent and convincing reasons.
The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court observed in the
impugned judgments, about the admitted case wherein the brother
and father of PW2 were accused of physically assaulting the petitioner
shortly before the incident; followed by the act of the petitioner
rushing to the house of PW2 with a chopper and hacking him
helter-skelter. The courts below have also concluded that the petitioner
would have suffered injuries when PW2 resisted the physical assault
upon him. It is further observed by the courts below that there is no
scope for a plea of private defence since the petitioner was found to
have criminally trespassed into the house of PW2 with a dangerous
weapon. Thus, it has to be stated that this is not a case where the
prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the petitioner.
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 6
Therefore, the challenge in the above regard would in no way help the
petitioner to get an acquittal. The findings of the courts below on the
above aspect do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.
8. Another challenge raised by the petitioner against his
conviction and sentence is that the failure of the prosecution to show
the presence of blood stains in the weapon and the scene of crime
would defeat the trustworthiness of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, who
stated that the assault of the petitioner had resulted in profuse spillage
of blood. The above aspect also has been dealt with by the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court, and held that there is absolutely no anomaly
on the above point since the inspection was done in the scene of crime
after three days from the date of offence, and by that time, the area
where the blood had spilled over, might have been washed and
cleaned. There is absolutely no reason to take a different view on that
point.
9. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that a counter case was registered against the brother and
father of PW2 in connection with the physical assault mounted upon
the petitioner shortly before the incident involved in this case, and that
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 7
it has prompted PW2 to prefer false complaint against the petitioner,
after physically assaulting him, when he came to the residence of PW2
to complain about the aforesaid physical assault committed by the
father and brother of PW2. The contention in the above regard is also
dealt with by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court meticulously, and
found to be unacceptable. After analysing the evidence in detail, it has
been observed by the Courts below that the arrival of the petitioner to
the house of PW2, shortly after the physical assault alleged to have
been committed upon him by the brother and father of PW2, can only
be for taking avenge, and not for complaining. There is absolutely no
reason to discard the above findings of the Courts below.
10. On going through the facts and circumstances as revealed
from the case records, and also the reasonings adopted by the courts
below in the impugned judgments, I am of the view that the
concurrent findings on conviction is not liable to be interfered with, in
exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. However, having
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence involved, and also the
genesis of the crime as a counter attack, I am of the view that the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years imposed by the
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 8
courts below, requires to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one
year for the commission of offences under Sections 452 and 326 I.P.C.
Subject to the above modification in the sentence, the revision petition
stands disposed of as follows:
i) The concurrent findings of the courts below convicting the
petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 452 and 326
I.P.C, are hereby confirmed.
ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts
below, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year each for the offences under Sections 452 and 326 I.P.C.
iii) The direction of the courts below to pay compensation
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to PW2, is retained as
such.
iv) In default of payment of compensation as directed above,
the petitioner will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period
of three months.
2026:KER:17465
Crl.R.P No.3421/2009 9
v) The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment
awarded for the offences under Sections 452 and 326 I.P.C shall run
concurrently.
vi) The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court within
a period of thirty days from today, to undergo the revised sentence,
and to make payment of compensation as directed in this order.
Registry shall transmit the case records along with a copy of this
order, to the Trial Court for the enforcement of the revised sentence.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
