[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Manzoor vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TH
TUESDAY, THE 27 DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 186 OF 2005
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2004 IN Crl.A NO.41 OF 2001
OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.12.2000 IN CC NO.436 OF 1996 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
SULFICKUR
S/O.M.M.BASHEER, VALIYAVILAKOM VEEDU, MADANVILA DESOM,
AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUDHEER G., PP,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2247/2005, 2842/2005, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2247 OF 2005
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.32 OF 2001 OF I
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT/ RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC
NO.436 OF 1996 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
1 MANZOOR
S/O.ABDULL RASHEED, VALIYAVILAKOM VEEDU, MANDANVILA
DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
2 SUNIL HAQ @ SUNIL
S/O.SAINUDHEEN, THITTAYIL VEEDU, MANDANVILA DESOM,
AZHOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT
3 NIZHABA
S/OFAZIL, SUNITHA MANZIL, MANDANVILA DESOM, AZHOOR
VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN
SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED
SRI.GEORGE PHILIP
SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
3
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
SRI SANAL P. RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.186/2005 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2842 OF 2005
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.38 OF 2001 OF I
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.436 OF 1996 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ABSON
KUNNUVILAKOM VEEDU, MADANVILA DESOM,, AZHOOR VILLAGE.
BY ADV SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.01.2026, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.186/2005 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
5
ORDER
Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.436/1996 of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. They were convicted
and sentenced by the learned Magistrate for the commission of offences
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, and 324 r/w Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The sentence awarded was Rigorous Imprisonment for
three months under Section 143 IPC, Rigorous imprisonment for six
months under Section 147 IPC , Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
under Section 148 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under
Section 452 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under
Section 324 IPC r/w Section 149 IPC. The sentences were ordered to
run concurrently.
3. Though the petitioners preferred appeals before the
Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, who considered their appeals, declined to interfere with
the findings of the learned Magistrate, and accordingly, confirmed the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. However, it was
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
made clear in the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court that if the
petitioners are undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life in any
other case, the sentence of imprisonment awarded in this case shall run
concurrently with such sentence of life imprisonment.
4. Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court, the petitioners are here with this revision.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
6. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with 15
other persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed
with deadly weapons, at about 1.30 a.m. on 16.01.1995 and mounted
physical assault upon PW1 and PW2 in prosecution of their common
object, after criminally trespassing to the residence of PW1. It is alleged
that the petitioner, along with other accused, used sword, pipe, etc., to
inflict voluntary hurt upon PW1 and PW2.
7. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, six witnesses
were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW6, and
seven documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P7.
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
8. It is after evaluating the aforesaid evidence that the learned
Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the offences
mentioned above. The Appellate Court made a reappraisal of the
evidence, and found that the findings of the learned Magistrate, are not
liable to be interfered with. However, the Appellate Court observed that
the sentence awarded in this case, shall run concurrently, if the
petitioners are already undergoing life imprisonment in any other cases.
9. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy
reliance upon the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW5 for arriving at
the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the
aforesaid offences against the petitioners. The fact that PW1 had given
evidence in a consistent manner, and that PW2 and PW5 also adduced
evidence in consonance with the version of PW1, have been taken note
of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, for arriving at the
finding that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offence. The
medical evidence pertaining to the injuries sustained by PW1 are also
taken note of by the courts below.
10. Having regard to the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, and also taking into account the reasoning adopted by the
2026:KER:6516
Crl.R.P.Nos.186, 2247 & 2842 of 2005
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, I am of the view that the
concurrent findings of the courts below, are not liable to be interfered
with, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Therefore, the
revision petition filed by the petitioners can only fail.
In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. However, it
is made clear that the jail authorities concerned shall take note of the
direction of the Appellate Court in the judgment rendered on
14.09.2004 in Crl.Appeal Nos.31,32, 37, 38 and 41 of 2001 that the
sentence awarded in this case shall run concurrently with the tenure of
life imprisonment, if any, being undergone by the petitioners, and take
appropriate decisions with regard to the release of the petitioners, upon
completion of the prescribed period of imprisonment.
sd/
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
jm/
