Gopalan vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2026

Crl. R.P. No. 149 of 2021                   1



                                                              2026:KER:3467
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                     PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN

         THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA, 1947

                            CRL.REV.PET NO. 149 OF 2021

JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2020 IN Crl. A NO.55 OF 2020 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS COURT-I, MANJERI

JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2020 IN CC NO.738 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NILAMBUR


REVISION PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

              GOPALAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
              S/O. PARANGODAN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, MOOTHEDAM POST, KALKULAM,
              NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.


              BY ADVS.
              SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
              SRI.M.ANUROOP




RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

              STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
              COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (CRIME NO.404/2014 OF
              EDAKKARA POLICE STATION).



       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

       14.01.2026, THE COURT ON 15.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl. R.P. No. 149 of 2021                  2



                                                              2026:KER:3467
                             JOHNSON JOHN, J.
            ---------------------------------------------------------
                          Crl. R.P. No. 149 of 2021
             ---------------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 15th day of January, 2026

                                    ORDER

The revision petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section

326 IPC by the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction,

but modified the sentence to undergo imprisonment for three months

and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.6.2014, at about 2.30 p.m.,

the accused, because of previous enmity, beat PW1 with a stick on his

right shoulder causing grievous hurt and fracture of right clavicle.

3. Heard Smt.Lira A.B., the learned counsel representing the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner on record and Sri. Alex M.

Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the

trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence in a

proper manner and that as per the prosecution case, the place of

2026:KER:3467 occurrence is the road; but the evidence of PW1 would show that the

incident occurred inside his grocery shop.

5. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 shows that there occurred a

verbal altercation between the witness and the accused, while he was

opening his shop and when he came out of the shop, the accused beat

him with a stick on his right shoulder. PW2 is an occurrence witness who

supported the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence. The learned

Senior Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the evidence of PWs 1 and

2 regarding the occurrence is supported by the medical evidence of PWs

5 and 7 doctors and in the absence of any material contradiction, the

evidence of PW1, injured eye witness, cannot be doubted.

6. In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8 SCC 165], the

Honourable Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:

"12. This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452 :

1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has laid down the following: (SCC pp. 454-55, para 5)

2026:KER:3467 "5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."

13. Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19] . This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in para 14:

(SCC p. 135)

"14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the

2026:KER:3467 courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."

7. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460],

the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:

"20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression "prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice", the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. ..."

8. It is well settled that revisional power is a type of supervisory

jurisdiction meant to rectify injustices and it is not the same as the

appellate jurisdiction, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in State

of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452].

The revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless there are

glaring indications of a grave injustice or a blatant violation of the law.

2026:KER:3467

9. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts and

circumstances of the case, I find that there is no illegality, perversity or

infirmity which necessitates the interference of this Court in revision.

In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.

sd/-