[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.R.Ravindran vs State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2026

                                                                     2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013                         1



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

                                TH
             MONDAY, THE 30          DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                               CRL.REV.PET NO. 788 OF 2013

           AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2005 IN CC NO.26/2004 DISPOSED BY

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY, AND MODIFIED IN CRL.APPEAL

NO.495/2005 BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC-III), THALASSERY,

DATED 17.12.2012

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED A1 TO A5:

       1        P.R.RAVINDRAN,AGED 31 YEARS
                S/O. GOVINDAN, COOLIE, TRIPPANGOTTUR.

       2        CHANDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS
                S/O. KUNHAMAN,COOLIE, TRIPPANGOTTUR.

       3        ABHILASH, AGED 22 YEARS
                S/O. RAYARAPPAN,COOLIE, TRIPPANGOTTUR.

       4        MANIKUTTAN, AGED 29 YEARS
                S/O. CHELLAPPAN,COOLIE, TRIPPANGOTTUR.

       5        SAJEEVAN, AGED 29 YEARS
                S/O. CHANDU, COOLIE, TRIPPANGOTTUR.

                BY ADVS. 
                SRI.S.RAJEEV
                SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

                STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                ERNAKULAM-682031.
                (CRIME NO. 388/2003 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.)

                SMT.ANIMA.M, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.03.2026, THE COURT ON 30.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                         2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013              2




                                   ORDER

The petitioners were found guilty and convicted by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery for the commission of offence under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 326 r/w Section 149 I.P.C. A sentence

of simple imprisonment for three months each was awarded for the

offences under Sections 143 and 147 I.P.C, and simple imprisonment

for six months under Section 148 I.P.C, to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to

5. In addition to that, the first petitioner was sentenced to simple

imprisonment for five years and fine Rs.3,000/- under Section 326

I.P.C. The petitioners 2 to 5 (accused Nos.2 to 5) were sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.1,000/- each

under Section 324 I.P.C. Default clauses were also provided for

non-payment of fine.

2. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(Adhoc)-III, Thalassery upheld the conviction and sentence of

petitioners 1 to 5 under Sections 143, 147 and 148 I.P.C. Accordingly,

they were awarded simple imprisonment for three months each for the

offences under Sections 143 and 147 I.P.C and simple imprisonment 2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013 3

for six months under Section 148 I.P.C. In addition to that, the first

petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for

three years and fine Rs.3,000/- under Section 326 I.P.C. The

petitioners 2 to 5 were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.1,000/- each under Section 323

I.P.C. The Appellate Court also provided default clauses of simple

imprisonments for non-payment of fine. It is the aforesaid verdict of

the Appellate Court which is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and

the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. The prosecution case is that on 27.09.2003 at about 9:45

p.m, the petitioners, along with three others, formed themselves into

an unlawful assembly, armed with dangerous weapons like sticks, and

committed rioting by physically assaulting PW1 by inflicting blows with

sticks upon his both legs, resulting in fracture of bones.

5. After analysing the evidence tendered by the prosecution

through the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW11, and the documents

marked as Exts.P1 to P7, and also after identifying the material objects 2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013 4

marked as MO1 series, the learned Magistrate recorded the conviction

and awarded the sentence as stated above. Though the petitioners

challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Appellate Court, the

learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the conviction and

sentence as stated in paragraph No.2 above. According to the

petitioners, the Courts below resorted to the conviction and sentence

as stated above without any legal evidence against the petitioners.

6. PW1, the injured, had testified before the Trial Court about

the act of the petitioners mounting physical assault upon him by hitting

with sticks at about 9:45 p.m on 27.09.2003 on a public road. PW2

supported the above evidence by stating that he was along with PW1

at the time when the petitioners physically assaulted and caused injury

to PW1 by inflicting blows with sticks. Both the above witnesses

stated before the Trial Court that they could see and identify the

accused since the accused were carrying torches with them. PW3, a

person who rushed to the scene of crime upon getting information

about the physical assault of the accused, also supported the case of

PW1. However, none of the aforesaid witnesses stated before the Trial 2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013 5

Court that the persons whom they referred to as accused, who

mounted physical assault upon PW1, are the persons standing in the

dock. In other words, the prosecution did not take any effort to get

the petitioners identified in Court at the time of examination of PW1 to

PW3. It is an irony to see that at the instance of the prosecution, the

weapons of offence were identified as MO1 series through PW2, but

nothing was brought out through the above witness as to whether the

persons who were standing in the Court hall in the column provided for

accused, were the persons who used the aforesaid weapons to inflict

blows upon PW1. To summarise, there was absolutely no dock

identification of the petitioners by PW1 to PW3 at the time of

examination of the above witnesses before the Trial Court.

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 2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013 6

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 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."

2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013 7

8. As far as the present case is concerned, the Appellate

Court brushed aside the legal infirmity in the above regard by

observing that it is not having any consequences, since the witnesses

were having previous acquaintance with the petitioners, whom they

referred to as the accused who mounted physical assault upon PW1.

The observation of the Appellate Court in the above regard is against

the settled position of law which is discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Tukesh Singh (supra). Thus, it has to be stated that the

conviction and sentence of the petitioners are vitiated due to the

failure of the prosecution to get the petitioners identified by the

occurrence witnesses at the time of their examination before the Trial

Court. Therefore, the Courts below have resorted to the conviction

and sentence of the petitioners on the basis of such evidence which

was legally impermissible to be accepted in the absence of proper

identification of the accused in Court. Needless to say, the conviction

recorded and sentence awarded upon the petitioners are liable to be

set aside for the aforesaid reason.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:

2026:KER:27614

Crl.R.P No.788/2013 8

(i) The concurrent findings of the Courts below, convicting the petitioners for the commission of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 326 I.P.C, and the modified sentence awarded by the Appellate Court, are hereby set aside.