[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Vinod @ Vinu vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2026
1
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 10TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 68 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.11.2014 IN Crl.A NO.97 OF 2014
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
1 VINOD @ VINU,S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT MENIKODE
HOUSE,VAZHUNNORADI,PUTHUKAI VILLAGE
2 GOPALAKRISHNAN,S/O.MADHAVAN,RESIDING AT VAZHUNNOORADI
HOUSE,PUTHUKAI VILLAGE
3 PRAMOD, S/O.ALAMI,RESIDING AT VAZHUNNORADI
HOUSE,PUTHUKAI VILLAGE
4 SURESHAN P.P, S/O.KUMARAN,PADIYIL
HOUSE,VAZHUNNORADI,PUTHUKAI VILLAGE
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM
SMT.MAYA M.N, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2026, THE COURT ON 30.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the convicts in C.C.No.1311 of
2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg.
As per the judgment dated 19.05.2014, the learned Magistrate
convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months for each of the offences under Sections 143, 147,
and 427 of the IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for two
years for the offence under Section 457 of the IPC. In addition to
the substantive sentence, the petitioners were sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 427 of the
IPC. In default of payment of the fine, they were directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. If the fine amount is
realised, Rs.10,000/- each was ordered to be given to PWs1 and
2 under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Cr.P.C' for short). Since the offence under Section 448 of IPC is
a minor offence to Section 457 of IPC, the petitioners were not
sentenced for that offence. Challenging the judgment of conviction
and sentence, the petitioners filed Crl.A.No.97 of 2014 before
the Sessions Division, Kasargod and by the judgment dated
13.11.2014, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge dismissed that
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved,
the petitioners are now before this Court with the present revision
petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is that on 05.03.2008, at about
7.45 p.m., the accused, five in numbers, formed themselves into
an unlawful assembly in front of Radhas Garments and Tailoring
Centre owned by PWs 1 and 3 situated at Puthukai Village, and in
prosecution of their common intention, trespassed into that shop
by break opening the lock and caused damages to the tune of
Rs.20,000/-, by damaging four sewing machines, furniture and
clothes.
3. On the basis of the first information statement of PW1,
the Police registered the FIR as Crime No.155 of 2008 for the
offences under Section 143, 147, 457, 427, 380 read with Section
149 of IPC. During the course of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed a report before the learned Magistrate,
deleting Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC. On arrest, accused
Nos.1, 2 and 5 were released on bail by the Police in view of the
deletion of non-bailable offences. On completion of the
investigation, PW7 laid the final report before the jurisdictional
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
court and it was taken cognizance by the learned magistrate. On
receipt of the summons, except accused No.2, who was no more
by that time, all the accused appeared and were enlarged on bail.
Copies of all prosecution records were furnished to accused Nos.1,
3, 4 and 5 under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the learned Magistrate framed charge for the offence under Secs.
143, 147, 148, 448, 427 read with 149 of IPC against the accused,
to which they pleaded not guilty.
4. From the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were
examined, Exts. P1 to P3 documents were marked, and MO1 to
MO7 material objects were identified. During prosecution
evidence, Exts. D1 and D2 were marked from the side of the
accused. When examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, all
the accused who faced the trial denied the incriminating
circumstances brought out against them.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned
Magistrate found that the accused were to be tried for the offence
under Section 457 of the IPC also. Therefore, charge under
Section 457 of the IPC was also framed against the accused.
Thereafter, opportunity was given to the prosecution and the
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
accused to recall the witnesses, and they were examined further.
On the application of the prosecution, two additional witnesses
were examined as PWs 9 and 10, and Exts.P4 to P10 documents
were marked. The accused were again examined under Section
313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. When the accused were called upon to
enter into their defence, they filed an application to call for
documents from the Municipality and with the consent of both
sides Ext.D3 and Ext. P11 documents were marked. After hearing
both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, the learned
Magistrate found the petitioners - accused guilty of the aforesaid
offences and sentenced the petitioners-accused as mentioned
above, which was confirmed in appeal also. Hence, the petitioners-
accused are now before this Court with the present revision
petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the building claimed as in the possession of PWs 1 and 3 is
not a house and hence the offence under Section 457 will not
attract in the present case. The learned counsel further submitted
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
that, though according to the prosecution the building to which
the accused allegedly trespassed is in the possession of PWs 1
and 3, as per Exts.P11 and D3 extracts of building tax assessment
register, the building is not in the name of either PW1 or PW3. In
fact, there is no evidence at all to show that PW1 was running a
shop by the name Radhas Garments and Tailoring Centre in the
subject room, as claimed by the prosecution. Though it is alleged
that the accused have committed mischief by damaging the
garments and sewing machines, they were not seized by the
Police. Apart from all, as per the version of PW1, One Karuthambu
had given information to her about the acts of the accused, and
hence PW1 reached to the place of occurrence. But, said
Karuthambu, was neither questioned nor made a witness by the
prosecution.
8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor
argued that PW10, the brother of PW3, was the tenant of building
No.18/290A, wherein PWs 1 and 3 conducted the Garments and
Tailoring Centre. From his deposition, it is clear that PW10
executed Ext.P10 rent deed in favour of the office bearers of one
Swaralaya Club, the owner of the shop room who had permitted
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
PWs 1 and 3 to run a tailoring and garment shop in the said
shoproom. From the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 7 to 10, the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the alleged incidents. The
parts of the damaged sewing machines, furniture and other
articles were seized by the Police from the place of occurrence,
and they were identified as MO 1 to MO7 during evidence. The
evidence of the prosecution witnesses proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
9. It is trite law that a Court exercising revisional
jurisdiction will interfere with orders or judgments of the courts
below only if those orders and judgments are suffering from
incorrectness, illegality or impropriety. Unless the judgment
passed by the learned Magistrate or by the Appellate Court is
perverse or the view taken by the Court is unreasonable, or there
is non-consideration of any relevant material, or there is palpable
misreading of records, the revisional Court is not justified in
interfering with the judgment. The revisional Court cannot act
like an Appellate Court.
10. In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri [AIR
1999 SC 981], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
"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."
11. In Munna Devi vs State of Rajasthan [AIR 2002
SC 107] the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 3 held thus:
"3. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of
the appellant. The revision power under the code of Criminal
procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual
manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no
authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the
trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional
powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there
is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal
proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated
in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence for which the accused has been charged."
12. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray
Gulabrao Phalke & Others [2015 (3) SCC 123], it has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court thus:
"Revisional power of the court under S.397 to 401 of Cr.PC
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".
13. PW1 is the person who had given the first information
statement to the Police from the place of occurrence itself and set
the law into motion. PW2 is an attesting witness to Ext.P2 scene
mahazar by which MOs 1 to 7 were seized by the Police. PW3 is
the co-owner of the shop. PWs 4 to 6 are attesting witnesses to
Ext.P3 seizure mahazar; however, they turned hostile to the
prosecution. PW7 is the Investigating Officer. PW8 is the Sub
Inspector who registered the crime after recording Ext.P1 first
information statement of PW1. PW9 is the Secretary of a Co-
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
operative society from where PWs1 and 3 availed a loan for
running the ready-made garment shop. PW10 is the additional
witness who is the brother of PW3 and the original tenant of the
shop room.
14. As per the prosecution version, PW10, who was the
tenant of door No.18/290A, obtained that room from the office
bearers of one Swaralaya club by exercising a lease deed. He
then let out that room to PWs 1 and 3. PWs 1 to 3 and 10 deposed
these facts before the Trial Court. According to PW1, on
05.03.2008 at about 7.45 p.m, on getting information over the
phone from one Karuthambu that some miscreants break opened
the shop room and pulled out cloths, etc, she rushed to the spot
and saw accused Nos. 1 to 5 destroying the furniture, sewing
machines, garments, and stationery items. The acts of the
accused caused a loss of Rs. 20000/- to them. The accused had
taken away some garments while returning from the place of
occurrence. On getting information about the incident Police
reached the place of occurrence and recorded Ext.P1 first
information statement of PW1 from the place of occurrence itself.
15. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
of PWs 2 and 3. PWs 1 and 2 identified MOs 1 to 7, which are the
damaged lock, clock, piece of furniture, computer, towel, soap and
thread. The possession of the building and running of Garments
and Tailoring shop by PWs 1 and 3 is proved by the evidence of
PWs 1 to 3 and 10, though there is no documentary evidence to
prove the same. PW1 is an eyewitness to the incident. According
to this witness, her house is at 10 minutes walkable distance from
the shop. When evidence on record sufficiently proves the
commission of the offence by the accused, the non-questioning or
non-examination of any of the witnesses is not fatal to the
prosecution. It is not the quantity of the evidence, but the quality
of the evidence that matters. Therefore, non-examination of
Karuthambu, who gave information of the incident to PW1 is not
fatal to the prosecution case. Similarly, in her evidence, PW1
deposed that the part of the sewing machine was recovered by the
Police from a nearby well, and it was released to her later on.
Therefore, these arguments addressed by the learned counsel for
the petitioners have no merits.
16. As per Section 457 of IPC, whoever commits lurking
house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night in order to
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment,
commits the said offence. The word house-trespass as per Section
442 of IPC means criminal trespass by entering into or remaining
in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any
building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody
of property. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that in order to attract the offence under Section
457 of the IPC, the building to which a lurking house trespass was
committed should be a dwelling house has no merits. Since the
building occupied by PWs 1 and 3 was used for the purpose of
tailoring and garment business, the offence under Section 457 of
IPC will attract, if the remaining ingredients of the offence are
proved.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused could
not point out any material contradiction in the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses. The FIR was registered immediately after
the incident. The possibility of false implication of the accused
could not be made out during cross examination of the prosecution
witnesses.
18. On appreciating the arguments addressed at the Bar
Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2015 2026:KER:7498
and the materials placed on the record in the light of the
judgments referred to supra, I find no reason to hold that the
impugned judgments of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court
are suffering from any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety. The
sentence imposed on the petitioners-accused also cannot be said
as unreasonable or excessive. Therefore, it is only to be held that
the petitioners have not made out any sufficient ground to
interfere with the judgments impugned in the revision petition.
In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
JUDGE
sks
