[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Soman vs State Of Kerala on 25 March, 2026
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 268 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY
THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ADOOR IN
CALENDAR CASE NO.1265/1997 DATED 21.10.2002 AS CONFIRMED AND
MODIFIED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTA IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.257/2002 DATED 19.07.2006
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SOMAN
SURESHVILASAM VEEDU, THAVITTAPOIKA,
ULLANNOOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE.
ADV.R.BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM
ADV.M.SUNIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADV.ANIMA.M, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.03.2026, THE COURT ON 25.03.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.1265/1997 on the files of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He was convicted and
sentenced by the learned Magistrate to rigorous imprisonment for one
year under Section 326 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for six months
under Section 324 I.P.C. In the appeal filed before the Sessions Court,
Pathanamthitta, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who considered
the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 326
I.P.C. For the offence under Section 324 I.P.C, the Appellate Court
sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for three months and
fine Rs.3,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for thirty
days. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, the
petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and
the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. The prosecution case is that on 05.11.1997 at about 7:30
p.m, the accused inflicted voluntary grievous hurt, and hurt upon PW1
and PW2 respectively by physically assaulting them with a kitchen knife
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 3
and a stick. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused hacked PW1 with a
kitchen knife resulting in the amputation of the tip portion of the left
little finger of PW1, when he tried to ward off the assault. The accused
is further alleged to have hacked PW2, the wife of PW1, when she tried
to intervene, and caused cut injuries above and below the left eye of
PW2. The accused is also alleged to have inflicted blows upon the back
side of PW2, and caused injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegations, the S.I of Police, Pandalam laid the final report before the
learned Magistrate, alleging the commission of offences under Sections
324 and 326 I.P.C by the petitioner.
4. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8, and marked six documents
as Exts.P1 to P6. It is after analysing the aforesaid evidence, that the
learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the commission of
offence under Sections 324 and 326 I.P.C, and awarded the punishment
as stated above. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
made a re-appraisal of the entire evidence and found that the injury
sustained by PW1 does not come under the category of grievous hurt.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in the impugned order
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 4
that the medical evidence brought on record did not disclose that the
tip portion of the left little finger of PW1 including phalanges was cut
off or amputated. Thus, according to the Appellate Court, the evidence
adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to show that the
petitioner inflicted voluntary grievous hurt upon PW1 or PW2. For the
said reason, the Appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence
for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C, and awarded a modified
sentence for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Courts below committed a grave error in finding the petitioner guilty of
physically assaulting PW1 and PW2, in the absence of any evidence
pointing to the identification of the petitioner as the accused, at the
time of examination of those witnesses.
6. PW1 to PW4 were examined by the prosecution to establish
the occurrence of the crime. As already stated above, PW1, and PW2,
his wife, are the persons injured due to the commission of the offence
involved in this case. PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses, who are said to
have rushed to the help of PW1 and PW2, hearing their cries when the
accused allegedly attacked them. However, PW3 and PW4 turned
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 5
hostile to the prosecution and discredited the prosecution story. PW1
and PW2 stated before the Trial Court about the physical assault
perpetrated upon them by the accused with a knife and stick, at about
7:30 p.m on 05.11.1997. In their evidence, the above witnesses had
referred to the accused with his name as 'Soman'. They also testified
before the Trial Court that the accused Soman resided near to the
residence of their daughter, and the incident occurred at the road in
front of the house of the accused. However, there is absolutely nothing
stated by PW1 and PW2 to the effect that the accused by name
'Soman,' whom they referred to in their testimonies, is the person
standing in the dock in the Court room at the time of trial. In other
words, there was absolutely no effort taken by the prosecution to get
the accused identified by PW1 and PW2 in Court during the course of
trial. The anomaly in the above regard, would render the evidence
tendered by PW1 and PW2, totally unreliable. It is well settled that the
dock identification of the accused during the course of trial is an
inevitable requirement in cases where the accused is previously known
to the witnesses. The failure to fulfil the aforesaid requirement would
vitiate the prosecution.
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 6
7. In Tukesh Singh v. State of Chattisgarh [2025 KHC
6479], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in a case where the
eye witnesses knew the accused before the incident, they must identify
the accused in dock as the same accused whom they had seen
committing the crime. It was further observed thereunder that, unless
the eye witnesses identify the accused present in Court, it cannot be
said that the guilt of the accused has been proved based on the
testimony of those witnesses. The relevant paragraph in the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:
"21. In a case where there are eyewitnesses, one situation can
be that the eyewitness knew the accused before the incident. The
eyewitnesses must identify the accused sitting in the dock as the
same accused whom they had seen committing the crime. Another
situation can be that the eyewitness did not know the accused before
the incident. In the normal course, in case of the second situation, it
is necessary to hold a Test Identification Parade. If it is not held and if
the evidence of the eyewitness is recorded after a few years, the
identification of such an accused by the eyewitness in the Court
becomes vulnerable. Identification of the accused sitting in the Court
by the eyewitness is of utmost importance. For example, if an
eyewitness states in his deposition that "he had seen A, B and C
killing X and he knew A, B and C". Such a statement in the
examination-in-chief is not sufficient to link the same to the accused.
The eyewitness must identify the accused A, B and C in the Court.
Unless this is done, the prosecution cannot establish that the accused
are the same persons who are named by the eyewitness in his
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 7
deposition. If an eyewitness states that "he had seen one accused
assaulting the deceased with a sword, another accused assaulting the
deceased with a stick and another accused holding the deceased to
enable other accused to assault the deceased." In such a case, the
eyewitness must identify the accused in the open Court who,
according to him, had assaulted the accused with a stick, who had
assaulted the deceased with a sword and who was holding the
deceased. Unless the eyewitnesses identify the accused present in the
Court, it cannot be said that, based on the testimony of the
eyewitnesses, the guilt of the accused has been proved."
8. As far as the present case is concerned, neither the Trial
Court nor the Appellate Court had considered the aforesaid anomaly in
the prosecution evidence regarding the omission to get the
petitioner/accused identified by PW1 and PW2. Since the error in the
above regard is one capable of stultifying the entire prosecution case, it
is highly necessary, to meet the ends of justice, that this Court has to
exercise its revisional powers to set aside the verdicts of the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court. Thus, this revision petition filed against the
verdicts of the Courts below, deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the petition stands allowed as follows:
i) The concurrent verdicts of conviction of the
petitioner/accused for the commission of offence under Section 324
2026:KER:25704
Crl.R.P No.268/2007 8
I.P.C by the Courts below, and the modified sentence awarded by the
Appellate Court for the said offence, are hereby set aside.
ii) The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offence
found against him by the Appellate Court.
iii) The bail bond of the petitioner stands cancelled and he is
set at liberty.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
