[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Hashim Kaithappara vs The State Of Kerala on 30 March, 2026
2026:KER:28492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1740 OF 2016
CRIME NO.294/2007 OF Kasaragod Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2011 IN Crl.A NO.83 OF
2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSN.COURT (ADHOC-II)KASARAGODE ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.441 OF 2007 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
HASHIM KAITHAPPARA
S/O MAMMU, PARA QUARTERS, NAYANMARMOOLA, KASARGODE
DISTRCIT.
BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM. 682 031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KASARGODE POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN 671
121.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
:2:
2026:KER:28492
2026:KER:28492
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J
......................................................
Crl.R.P.No.1740 of 2016
......................................................
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2026
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
challenging the judgment dated 17.09.2011 in Crl. Appeal No.
83/2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II,
Kasaragod, arising out of the judgment dated 29.02.2008 in C.C.
No. 441/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Kasaragod. The revision petitioner herein is
the sole accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that on 27.04.2007 at 05.30
p.m., while PW1, a Police Constable attached to Kasaragod Police
Station, reached in front of Malabar Gold at Kasaragod to
enquire about the incident that occurred there, the accused was
found carrying a stone in his hand. When PW1 intervened, the
accused caught hold of and tore the uniform shirt of PW1 and hit
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
him below the left eye with the stone. The accused also abused
PW1 in filthy language and obstructed him from performing his
official duty. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed
offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 332 of the IPC.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined ten witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and
marked Exts. P1 to P8. MO1 was exhibited and identified. After
the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was
questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he
denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against
him in evidence. From the side of the accused, no evidence
whatsoever was adduced.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found
the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections
294(b) and 332 of the IPC and convicted him. The accused was
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 294(b) of the IPC, with a default
sentence of simple imprisonment for fifteen days. For the
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
offence punishable under Section 332 of the IPC, the accused
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a default sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for six months. The fine amount, if paid
or realised, Rs. 5,000/-, was ordered to be given to PW1 as
compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused
preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who
heard the appeal confirmed the finding as well as the sentence
imposed.
5. Heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Public
Prosecutor, and also perused the records.
6. This is a case in which a police constable was allegedly
abused and assaulted so as to obstruct him from discharging his
official duty. When the de facto complainant, who allegedly
sustained injury, was examined as PW1, he portrayed the entire
matter that transpired in this case vividly before the court.
According to him, it was as directed by the Head Constable of
Police, Kasaragod Police Station, who was on GD charge duty,
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
that he reached the place of occurrence. When he reached there,
he saw the accused uttering obscene words, holding a stone in
his hand, and threatening PW2 under the influence of alcohol.
Seeing the same, when he approached the accused, the accused
turned towards him, caught hold of his uniform, and struck him
below his left ear and left eye with a stone.
7. From the records, it is evident that the evidence of
PW1 is well corroborated by the medical evidence adduced in
this case. The doctor who examined PW1 immediately after the
incident and issued Ext. P2 wound certificate was examined as
PW3. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW3 and Ext. P2
wound certificate clearly establishes that injuries corresponding
to the overt act attributed to the accused were noted in the
medical examination of PW1.
8. Moreover, PW1, being an injured witness, his evidence
is accorded a special status in law. It is trite that an injured
witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the
crime scene, and normally such a witness will not point his finger
towards an innocent person as the perpetrator of the offence,
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
particularly when doing so would allow the actual assailant to
escape punishment. Moreover, in the case at hand, there are
absolutely no materials to show that PW1 had any sort of grudge
or animosity towards the accused that would motivate him to
falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no
reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1.
9. Moreover, it is well settled that a court exercising
revisional jurisdiction will interfere with the findings of the courts
below only when such findings suffer from illegality, impropriety,
or perversity. Unless it is shown that the judgment of the Trial
Court or the Appellate Court is perverse, unreasonable, or
suffers from non-consideration of relevant material or
misreading of evidence, interference in revision is not warranted.
The revisional court cannot reappreciate the evidence as an
Appellate Court and substitute its own view merely because
another view is possible.
10. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri [AIR 1999 SC 981], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held thus:
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
"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. Keeping in mind the above principles, I find no ground
to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial
Court, which has been rightly confirmed by the Appellate Court.
However, insofar as the sentence imposed on the accused is
concerned, it is to be noted that the incident occurred while the
accused was in an inebriated state, although the same is not a
reason to justify the criminal act attributed to him. Nevertheless,
the offence was not premeditated. Moreover, the accused was
aged 51 at the time of the incident and would now be around 70
years old. Likewise, no criminal antecedents have been pointed
out against the accused. Considering all these aspects, I am of
the view that interference is warranted with respect to the
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
sentence imposed in this case.
12. In the result, the finding of guilt and conviction of the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and
332 IPC are confirmed. However, the sentences imposed on the
accused for the said offences appear to be somewhat harsh and
are therefore modified as follows:
1. The accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the
IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one week.
2. The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for two weeks and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 332
IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The fine
amount, if paid or realised, i.e., Rs. 10,000/-, shall be
given to PW1 as compensation, as provided under
Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
Set-off is allowed.
Crl.R.P.No1740 of 2016
2026:KER:28492
With this affirmation and modification, the Criminal Revision
Petition is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
