Kerala High Court
Shibu vs State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 15TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1446 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2015 IN CC NO.204 OF
2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KOTTAYAM
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.09.2016 IN CRL.A NO.13
OF 2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V,
KOTTAYAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHIBU
SHEEBAVILASOM, PURUMKUZHY BHAGOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.SOJAN PAVIYANOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN.U-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.1446 of 2016
2
2025:KER:73996
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
......................................
Crl.R.P.No.1446 of 2016
.............................................................
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2025
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 119(i)
(a) of the Kerala Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'KP Act' for short).
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in CC No.204 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Section 119(i)(a) of KP Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 08.02.2013 at about 04:00 p.m., the accused was found flashing and showing sexual gestures to the girl children of Darsana Academy, from behind a lorry parked on the northern side of Sasthri road and infront of Darsana Academy, Kottayam.
4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 119(i)(a) of KP Act and convicted him thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment Crl.R.P.No.1446 of 2016 3 2025:KER:73996 for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 119(i)(a) of KP Act, with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.App.No.13 of 2016 before the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam. The said court by judgment dated 08.09.2016 allowed the appeal in part and while confirming the conviction, modified and reduced the sentence to one of simple imprisonment for a period of one month, by retaining the fine and the default sentence imposed by the trial court.
6. Heard Sri. Sojan Paviyanose, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Jayakrishnan U., the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the only evidence available to prove the occurrence is the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, who are police officials. He argued that the police have not examined any other independent witnesses and also the girl students who have allegedly witnessed the incident. He further submitted that the police while arresting the accused did not prepare an arrest memo and arrest intimation and the same is fatal to the prosecution case, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [1997 KHC 245]. Crl.R.P.No.1446 of 2016 4
2025:KER:73996
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
9. This court while considering a revision petition, is not expected to reappraise the evidence on record and it is only in cases where the judgment is perverse, an interference would be made. In the instant case, it is to be seen that both the trial court and the appellate court has appreciated the evidence of record in detail and has chosen to believe PWs 1 and 2, the police officials. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 clearly shows that on the fateful day, they have found the accused flashing in front of girl students of Darsana Academy and also showing some sexual gestures to them. Immediately thereupon, PW2 arrested the accused and registered Ext.P1 FIR. It is to be seen that even though these witnesses have been cross-examined in extenso, nothing material has been brought out to discredit their testimonies, regarding the crux of the events. The only embellishment which has been brought out in the cross-examination is regarding the number of police officials were present at the time of occurrence and as rightly found by the courts below, it is not at all a ground to discard the evidence of these witnesses. The evidence of the afore witnesses thus categorically shows that the accused has, in a public place, flashed Crl.R.P.No.1446 of 2016 5 2025:KER:73996 against girl students and has made sexual gestures and it can be found that these acts undoubtedly will degrade the dignity of women.
10. It is true that the prosecution has not examined the girl students of Darsana Academy and any other witnesses present in the scene to prove the occurrence. It is a settled law that it is not the quantity of evidence, but its quality which will be considered by the courts. In the instant case, as stated afore, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, though are police officials, are credible and cogent on material aspects, and it proves the ingredients of the offence alleged and if so, I find that the non examination of these witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution.
11. As regards the contention regarding non preparation of arrest memo, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in it. It is to be seen that infact, the arrest of the accused has been recorded in Ext.P2 report and has been produced before the Magistrate, along with the other documents. Further, the accused has been released on bail from the police station itself, immediately after his arrest, on executing a bond by the sureties. If so, the non preparation of arrest intimation also losses its significance. In the light of the afore discussions, I find that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the trial court and the appellate court, warranting Crl.R.P.No.1446 of 2016 6 2025:KER:73996 interference.
12. Now, coming to the question of sentence, considering the nature of the offence, its gravity, the fact that the incident has taken place in the year 2013 and the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused can be modified and reduced to one of simple imprisonment for a period of ten days and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 119(i)(a) of KP Act.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as follows;
i) The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused under Section 119(i)(a) of KP Act in C.C.No. 204 of 2013 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, III, Kottayam and as affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016, by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kollam, is upheld;
ii) The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/ accused is modified and reduced to one of simple imprisonment for a period of ten days and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 119(i)(a) of KP Act;
iii) In case of default in payment of fine, the revision petitioner/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months;
iii) Set off if any, is also granted.
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Dxy