[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Kunnoth Babu vs State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2026
2026:KER:196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO.4058 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.09.2006 IN Crl.A NO.401
OF 2001 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III,
THALASSERY
IN CC NO.448 OF 2000 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 KUNNOTH BABU
MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 KOOLOTH VALAPPIL PADMANABHAN
S/O. CHOYI, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM,
DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 KOOLOTH VALAPPIL BABOOTTY
S/O. CHOYI, MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM,
DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 PALLIYATH RAHEEM SO. PAREED
MUZHAPPILANGAD AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU.M.THOMAS
SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2026:KER:196
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4058 of 2006
-2-
SMT.MAYA M.N., PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:196
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4058 of 2006
-3-
G. GIRISH, J.
----------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4058 of 2006
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.448 of 2000 on the
files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery.
They were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.10,000/- with a default
clause of Simple Imprisonment for nine months for the commission
of offence under Section 326 IPC. They were also convicted and
sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for six months and one month
respectively for the commission of the offences under Sections 323
and 341 IPC. In the appeal preferred before the Sessions Court,
Thalassery, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the
offence under Section 326 IPC is not made out in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge altered the conviction under Section 326 IPC to one
under Section 324 IPC, and awarded a sentence of Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years. The conviction and sentence awarded
2026:KER:196
by the Trial Court for the other offences were upheld by the
Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate
Court, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. The prosecution case is that on 25.07.2000, at about
9.30 am, the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention,
wrongfully restrained PW2 and inflicted voluntary hurt and grievous
hurt upon him by beating with hands and hitting with an iron rod.
The Trial Court relied on the evidence tendered by the prosecution
through the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 5, and the documents
marked as Exts.P1 to P4. The evidence adduced from the part of the
accused through the oral testimonies of DW1 and DW2 were also
taken into consideration by the Trial Court. Among the five witnesses
examined from the part of the prosecution, PW2, the injured, is the
only person who had testified about the criminal act attributed
against the petitioners. Though there had been discrepancies in the
evidence tendered by PW2 with regard to the nature of the injuries
2026:KER:196
sustained by him, the Trial Court found that his testimony was
reliable and accordingly resorted to the conviction of the accused.
4. The Appellate Court found that the Trial Court went
wrong in convicting the petitioners for the commission of the offence
under Section 326 IPC in the absence of X-ray report and the
necessary medical evidence to show that PW2 sustained fracture as
alleged by the prosecution. It is further observed by the Appellate
Court in the impugned judgment that while the medical evidence
adduced disclosed compound fracture of left lower limp, PW2 had no
such case, since he stated that there was only peeling of skin on the
left leg, and that fracture was actually sustained on his right leg. It is
by taking note of all the above anomalies that the Appellate Court
found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution were not
sufficient to establish the offence under Section 326 IPC. However,
the Appellate Court placed reliance upon the sole oral evidence
adduced by PW2 and found that the petitioners were guilty of
commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC. However, it is
pertinent to note that the only material objects brought on record
were MO1 series, which were the wearing apparels of the injured.
2026:KER:196
The alleged iron rod used by the petitioners for inflicting voluntary
hurt upon PW2 are not seen produced before the Trial Court and
marked as a material object. There is also no convincing explanation
offered by the prosecution for the failure to adduce evidence in that
regard. Nothing has been stated in the evidence adduced by the
prosecution to show that the accused had disposed of the weapon of
offence in such a manner that it was not possible to recover the
same. Taking into account the above shortcoming in the evidence
adduced, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence awarded
by the court below upon the petitioners for the commission of
offence under Section 324 IPC, are also not sustainable. In the
absence of convincing evidence to show that the accused had used a
dangerous weapon or an object, which if used as a weapon of
offence, is capable of causing death, there cannot be a conviction for
the commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC. That being so,
it is highly necessary to modify the conviction and sentence awarded
by the courts below by confining the offences to those under
Sections 341 and 323 IPC alone.
2026:KER:196
5. Having regard to the nature of the offence found to have
been committed by the petitioners, I am of the view that the
sentence of imprisonment awarded has to be limited to
imprisonment till the rising of court. However, the petitioners are
bound to pay an exemplary compensation to PW2 / injured or his
legal heirs for the hardships and sufferings caused to him.
In the result, the revision stands allowed in part as follows:-
(i) The conviction of the petitioners by the courts
below stands modified to one under Sections 341 and 323
IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
(ii) In supersession of the sentence awarded by
the courts below, the petitioners are sentenced to
imprisonment till the rising of court with a direction to pay
compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)
each under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to PW2 or his legal
heirs for the commission of offence under Section 323
IPC.
2026:KER:196
(iii) No separate punishment is awarded for the
commission of the offence under Section 341 IPC found
against the petitioners.
(iv) In the event of failure of the petitioners to pay
the compensation of Rs.10,000/- each, the defaulters will
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.
(v) The Trial Court shall take appropriate steps for
disbursing the compensation amount to PW2 or his legal
heirs as soon as it is deposited in compliance with this
order.
(vi) The petitioners shall surrender before the Trial
Court within a period of one month from today to undergo
the modified sentence awarded by this order.
The Registry shall transmit the case records along with a copy
of this order to the Trial Court for ensuring compliance.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/06.01.2026
