[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vattakattu Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 /
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2735 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.04.2006 IN Crl.A NO.622
OF 2001 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY
WHICH CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2001 IN CC NO.881
OF 1995 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
,TALIPARAMBA
PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 VATTAKATTU RAJAN, 41 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, MANNUKUNDU,
VELLAD P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST.
2 VATTAKATTU BENNY SEBASTIAN 29 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY,
MANNUKUNDU, VELLAN P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR
DIST.
3 VATTAKATTU ANTONY APPACHAN
78 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, MANNUKUNDU,, VELLAD P.O.,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST. (DIED)
4 VATTAKATTU SIBI MATHEW
30 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, MANNUKUNDU,, VELLAD P.O.,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DIST.
BY ADV SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
ADV.V.A.SATHEESH
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 2
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ATERNAKULAM.
SRI.RAHUL SUNIL (AMICUS CURIAE)
SRI.SANAL P.RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 29.10.2025, THE COURT ON 06.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 3
ORDER
The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court,
Thalassery in Crl.A No.622/2001 is under challenge in this revision at
the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C No.881/1995 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thaliparamba who are the
appellants therein. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced by
the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thaliparamba for the commission of
offences under Sections 452, 323 and 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. They
were awarded simple imprisonment for two months for the offence
under Section 452 I.P.C, simple imprisonment for thirty days for the
offence under Section 324 I.P.C, and simple imprisonment for 15 days
and fine Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C by
the learned Magistrate. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon the
accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. While
retaining the conviction for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C upon
the first accused, the conviction for the offence under Section 324
I.P.C upon all accused were set aside and modified to Section 323
I.P.C. Accordingly, the first accused was sentenced to simple
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 4
imprisonment for two months under Section 452 I.P.C, and simple
imprisonment for thirty days and fine Rs.1,000/- with a default clause
of simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 I.P.C with the
direction that the substantial sentence of imprisonment shall run
concurrently. Accused Nos.2 to 4 were sentenced to fine Rs.1,000/-
each under Section 323 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C with a default clause
of simple imprisonment for 15 days each. Though accused Nos.2 to 4
remitted the aforesaid fine, they, along with the first accused, have
challenged the verdict of the Appellate Court in this revision.
2. Since there was no representation from the petitioners in
spite of notice issued to them, Adv.Mr.Rahul Sunil was appointed as
Amicus Curiae to represent the petitioners.
3. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing revision
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of
Kerala.
4. The prosecution case is that on 20.08.1995, at about 6:00
p.m, the accused, with the common intention to physically assault
PW1, criminally trespassed into the residence of PW1 and inflicted
voluntary hurt upon him by beating with a stick. It is alleged that the
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 5
first accused dragged PW1 to the courtyard of his house and beat him
with a stick, while the other accused beat him with hands. When
PW3 tried to intervene, the first accused is alleged to have beat on his
head with that stick. The first accused is also alleged to have hit PW4
with a cycle stand. The second accused is alleged to have hit PW5
with a cycle pump and caused injuries to him. Thus, the accused are
alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
5. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and marked seven
documents as Exts.P1 to P7. MO1 to MO7 were identified. From the
part of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1. It is after
evaluating the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate arrived
at the finding that the prosecution successfully established that the
accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323
and 324 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C.
6. The Appellate Court made a re-appraisal of the whole
evidence and concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate
that all the witnesses gave consistent versions about the act of the
first accused dragging PW1 from his house to the veranda and
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 6
mounting physical assault upon him with a stick. However, the
Appellate Court found that the evidence was insufficient to show that
the other accused committed house trespass into the residence of
PW1 after making preparations for committing assault. The Appellate
Court agreed with the observation of the learned Magistrate that the
contradictions and variations in the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW5
about the use of weapons by the accused, cannot be termed as so
material to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. Accordingly, it
was concluded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the
evidence on record clearly established that the first accused beat
PW1, PW3 and PW4 resulting in hurt and the second accused inflicted
voluntary hurt upon PW5. It was further found that the evidence
convincingly established the criminal trespass of the first accused into
the residence of PW1 and also the physical assault mounted by
accused Nos.3 and 4 upon PW3. The defence case that it was the
first accused who had been physically assaulted by PW1, PW3 and
PW4, was found to be unbelievable by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court. The Appellate Court further concluded that the stick
used by the first accused to inflict blows upon the injured, cannot be
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 7
termed as a dangerous weapon, and hence the offence under Section
324 I.P.C is not attracted, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The findings of the Appellate Court on all the above aspects are based
on sound judicial reasoning. It is not possible for this Court to
interfere with the aforesaid findings on facts, arrived on the basis of
the evidence on record, in exercise of the revisional powers. The
modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court is also perfectly
reasonable, and commensurate with the gravity of the offence found
to have been committed by the petitioners/accused. In the above
circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the conviction and
sentence awarded by the Appellate Court upon the petitioners.
Needless to say, the revision can only fail.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. This Court places
on record its appreciation to the assistance rendered by the learned
Amicus Curiae Adv.Mr.Rahul Sunil, in presenting the case for and on
behalf of the revision petitioners. The Registry shall transmit a copy
of this order, along with the case records, to the Trial Court forthwith
for the enforcement of the sentence.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
2026:KER:6
Crl.R.P.No.2735/2006 8
jsr
