Kerala High Court
Musthafa vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2025
Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2025:KER:34493
CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021
CRIME NO.146/2011 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, Kannur
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN Crl.A NO.271/2014 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.575/2012 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB COURT/COMMERCIAL COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1,3,4,5,10,17,18:
1 MUSTHAFA
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. AALI, ARUVAMPALLI PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE,
NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 AZKER
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI, CHERIYAKUNHIKANDY HOUSE,
NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 JAMSHEER
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. MOIDU, PARETH HOUSE, NARATH, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
4 SIYAD P.P.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. ABU, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, NARATH, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
2025:KER:34493
CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021
2
5 P.P. FAIZAL
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. HAMEED, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, NARATH,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
6 RASIK
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, MUKRINTEKATH HOUSE,
NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.
7 K.P. MUTHALIB
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ABDULLA, KOYYAPURATH HOUSE,
NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
E.A.HARIS
M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER(K/829/2013)
MUHAMMED YASIL(K/000989/2017)
AAGI JOHNY(K/1674/2024)
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.HRITHWIK.C.S, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:34493
CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021
3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.447 of 2021
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2025
ORDER
This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners as per the judgment dated 24.07.2014 in S.C. No.575/2012 passed by the Assistant Sessions Court, Kannur and also as per the judgment dated 30.06.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.271/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery.
2. The Mayyil Police charge-sheeted against the revision petitioners and others alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). The prosecution case is that, on 13.04.2011 at 6.30 P.M the accused 1 to 22 due to political rivalry towards CWs 1 to 4 who were standing near Narath Juma-ath Mosque situated on the road proceeding from Narath to Pampuruthi at Narath amsom desom with the common object 2025:KER:34493 CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021 4 to commit crime formed an unlawful assembly and they came in car and bikes armed with deadly weapons such as chopper, iron rod, iron pipe, wooden stick, etc. from Narath area and out of the accused, accused namely Faisal, Jebbar and Abid by chopper and other accused by other weapons attacked CW1 and his friends and CW1 and CW2 sustained grievous injury while CWs 3 and 4 sustained simple injuries and the accused attempted to commit murder of CWs 1 to 4 and thus, they have committed the above said offences.
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and marked Exts.P1 to P39 documents. MOs 1 to 9 are the material objects. After going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that accused Nos.1, 3, ,4, 5, 6 and 11 to 16 are guilty under Section 143 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 148 IPC, and also rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 324 IPC. They 2025:KER:34493 CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021 5 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The accused were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the said offence. It is also ordered that substantial sentence will run concurrently. Set off is also allowed. The case against the other accused were splited. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thalassery allowed the appeal in part on the following terms:
"1. The appeal is allowed in part as far as A16, 19, 20 and 22 and they are acquitted of all the charges U/s.386 (b)(i) of Cr.P.C.
2. Appeal is allowed in part as far as A1, 3 to 5, 10, 11, 17 and 18 in respect of the offence punishable U/s.307 r/w S.149 of IPC and they are acquitted of the said charge U/s.386 (b)(i) of Cr.P.C.
3. The appeal is allowed in part in so far as it relates to A1, 3 to 5 and 16 to 18 in respect of the offence punishable U/s.148 of IPC and they are acquitted of the said charge U/s.386 (b)(i) of Cr.P.C.
2025:KER:34493 CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021 6
4. The appeal is dismissed in part as far as A1, 3 to 5, 10, 17 and 18 in respect of the offences punishable U/s.143, 147 and 324 r/w S.149 of IPC by maintaining the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial court for the said offences.
5. The trial court shall proceed to execute the modified sentence imposed on A1, 3 to 5, 10, 17 and 18 in accordance with law."
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, this revision petition is filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. As per the impugned judgment, the revision petitioners were found guilty under Sections 143, 147 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC and the sentence imposed by the trial court is confirmed. As far as other offences are concerned, they were acquitted.
6. This Court perused the impugned judgment and the evidence available in this case. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence available along with the documents, 2025:KER:34493 CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021 7 I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the concurrent finding of conviction imposed on the revision petitioners under Sections 143, 147 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt invoking the revisional powers is very limited. On an anxious consideration of the impugned judgment, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed on the revision petitioners.
7. What remains is the sentence imposed on the petitioners. The counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the alleged incident happened on 13.04.2011. Now about 14 years over. No serious injury is sustained to the victims. It is also submitted that they had undergone pre trial detention and the same may be set off and they may not be sent to jail at this distance of time. I think there is force in the above argument. The maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence under Section 143 IPC is imprisonment for six months or fine or both. Similarly the maximum punishment that can be imposed for the offence under Section 147 IPC is imprisonment for two 2025:KER:34493 CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021 8 years or fine or both. As far as the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three years imprisonment or fine or both. Therefore it is clear that the jail sentence is not mandatory as far as the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 324 IPC is concerned. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the revision petitioners had already undergone pre trial detention. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that substantial sentence can be reduced.
Therefore, this revision petition is allowed in part with following directions:
1. The conviction imposed on the revision petitioners under Sections 143, 147 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC is confirmed.
2. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioners for the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside.
3. The revision petitioners are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 days under Section 143 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default 2025:KER:34493 CRL.REV.PET NO. 447 OF 2021 9 of payment of fine, the revision petitioners are directed to undergo imprisonment for 3 days.
4. The revision petitioners are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 147 IPC with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioners are directed to undergo imprisonment for one week.
5. The revision petitioners are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days under Section 324 IPC with a fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioners are directed to undergo imprisonment for one week.
6. The set off is allowed.
7. The revision petitioners are allowed to undergo the sentence concurrently.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE