[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreejesh vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2026
Crl.R.P No.395 of 2021 1
2026:KER:3537
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 395 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1415/2010 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4-3-2020 IN Crl.A NO.411 OF
2018 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-9-2018 IN CC NO.236 OF
2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KALAMASSERY.
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
1 SREEJESH, AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O SHANKARANKUTTY, PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE,
NEAR IAC COMPANY, KUTTIKATTUKARA,
KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE.
2 LENIN SEBASTIAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O SEBASTIAN, PALLATH HOUSE,
PUTHIYA ROAD KAVALA, KUTTIKATTUKARA,
KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE.
3 RATHEESH, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O RAJAN, KUNNAMKULATH HOUSE,
UDYOGAMANADALM BHAGAM, ELOOR KARA,
ELOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.D.JOHNY
SHRI.T.A.AJMAL HUSSAIN
SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS
Crl.R.P No.395 of 2021 2
2026:KER:3537
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI - 682 031.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON 16-01-2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P No.395 of 2021 3
2026:KER:3537
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P No.395 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2026.
O R D E R
The revision petitioners are the accused
in C.C No. 236 of 2015 on the file of the Court
of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalamassery
and appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 411 of 2018 on
the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Court, Ernakulam.
2. The Appellate court confirmed the
conviction of the revision petitioners under
Sections 323, 324 and 326 r/w 34 IPC, and
modified and reduced the sentence to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each under
Section 323 r/w 34 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for
2026:KER:3537
two months each under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and
Simple Imprisonment for three months each under
Section 326 r/w 34 IPC and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each, and in default of payment of
fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two
months each.
3. The prosecution case is that on
07.08.2010 at 10.30 p.m., the accused persons
attacked PWs 1 and 2 with soda bottles causing
them serious injuries including frontal bone and
nasal bone fracture.
4. Heard Sri. Devika Rathanan, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Alex
M. Thombra, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioners argued that the trial court and the
Appellate court ought to have found that the
2026:KER:3537
identification of the accused persons before the
Court in the absence of a test identification
parade is not at all reliable and that the non
examination of CW3, a material witness has caused
prejudice to the accused persons and there was no
opportunity for the defense to cross examine PW3
Doctor.
6. PWs 1 and 2 are the injured eye witnesses
and their evidence regarding the occurrence is
corroborated by the evidence of PW4, an
occurrence witness and the evidence of PW3 doctor
and Exts.P2 and P3 wound certificates. Even
though, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners argued that there was no opportunity
to cross examine PW3, a perusal of the deposition
of PW3 shows that PW3 Doctor was seriously cross
examined by the defense. Both the injured eye
2026:KER:3537
witnesses identified the accused persons before
the Court and further, the evidence of PW4
clearly shows that PWs 1 and 2 and the accused
persons are previously known to him and he
witnessed the occurrence. The evidence of PW4
regarding the occurrence tallies with the
evidence of PWs 1 and 2, and further their
evidence is also supported by the evidence of PW3
Doctor and Exts. P2 and P3 wound certificates and
therefore, in the absence of any material
contradiction, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2
injured eye witnesses cannot be doubted.
7. In Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [(2018) 8
SCC 165], the Honourable Supreme Court inter
alia held as follows:
2026:KER:3537
"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)
"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
2026:KER:3537
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 courts may not interfere with decision
in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
8. 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
2026:KER:3537
completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised
arbitrarily. ..."
9. 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.
10. Revisional jurisdiction can be exercised
only in exceptional cases where there is a
glaring defect in the procedure or there is a
manifest error of law, and I find that in this
case there is no illegality, perversity or
2026:KER:3537
infirmity which necessitates the interference of
this Court in revision.
In the result, the revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.
amk
