Kerala High Court
Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016
1
2025:KER:78107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2015 IN Crl.A NO.131 OF 2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH
PARAVUR ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2014 IN CC NO.1322 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I ,PERUMBAVOOR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RAJAN,S/O. KURUMBAN
AGED 47 YEARS
POTTUMARATHAN HOUSE, NADUVATTOM, MANJAPRA.
BY ADV SRI.P.T.JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALADY POLICE STATION.
SMT. MAYA.M.N-PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING FINALLY HEARD ON 21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016
2
2025:KER:78107
ORDER
Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C. No.1322/2008 on the files of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-1, Perumbavoor. He stood trial before that Court for committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, and 326 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that on 10.06.2008, at around 8:00 pm, in front of the residential house of PW1 located at Manjapra, the accused attacked PW1 with a stick, causing injuries including a fracture on his left wrist. Thereafter, the accused also gave a bite to PW3 on his left thigh, again causing an injury.
4. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and acquitted him thereof. But it found the accused guilty of CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 3 2025:KER:78107 committing the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the IPC and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 323 of the IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 326 of the IPC, with a default clause.
5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl. Appeal No. 131/2014 before the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur. By judgment dated 21.12.2015, the said Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused under Section 323 of the IPC. However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 326 of the IPC and modified the sentence to one of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with a default clause.
6. Heard Sri P.T. Jose, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 4 2025:KER:78107 the records.
7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He argued that the instant case and its counter case have been conducted by the very same Public Prosecutor, and therefore, the same is illegal. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Moidotty K. v. Usman and another1 to support the afore contention. Furthermore, he contended that the instant case has been falsely foisted due to political animosity and that many persons who have witnessed the incident have not been arrayed as witnesses and examined, in order to help PW1. He also argued that the material witnesses have not identified the weapon allegedly used in the attack, and that the same is fatal to the prosecution. 1 2016 (2) KHC 564 CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 5 2025:KER:78107
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
9. It is a settled law that a Court sitting in revision will not reappraise the evidence on record and it is only in cases where the judgments impugned are perverse, interference will be made. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1, the victim, would go to show that on the fateful day at about 8.00 pm, while he was in his house, the accused came in front of his house and made a commotion. At that time, the accused was holding a stick, and was uttering abusive words. When he approached the accused, the accused beat him on his left wrist using the stick and thereafter, pulled him down. When PW3, his son, intervened, the accused also gave a bite on his left thigh and slapped him on his cheek. It is to be seen that the evidence of PW2, the wife of PW1, and the evidence of PW3, the son of PW1, also tallies in material particulars with the events as deposed by PW1.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 6 2025:KER:78107
10. It is true that PW1 did not identify the weapon which was allegedly used to attack him. However, his evidence clearly shows that he was assaulted by the accused using a stick and that he sustained injuries as a result of the said attack. But it is relevant to note that both PW2 and PW3 have positively identified MO1 as the stick used to attack PW1. Even though, these witnesses have been cross examined in extenso, nothing material has been brought out to disbelieve them.
11. Be that as it may, it is to be seen that the recitals in Ext.P1, the First Information Statement lodged by PW1, also tallies in material particulars with the evidence of PW1 regarding the events. Further, the records show that PW1 has sought medical aid immediately after the incident and the evidence of PW4, the doctor, coupled with Ext.P2 wound certificate would go to show that, when he examined PW1 at about 9.20 pm on the same day, PW1 was suffering from a contusion on his left knee, a soft tissue injury on his right knee and fracture of scaphoid bone left wrist. PW4 also opined that the injuries sustained by PW1 can be caused CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 7 2025:KER:78107 as alleged. Thus, the medical evidence adduced also supports the evidence of PW1 regarding the injuries suffered by him. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have relied on the evidence of these witnesses and have categorically found the accused guilty and that he is the real aggressor. I also do not find any reason to take a different view.
12. As regards the contention of the revision petitioner by relying on the decision in Moidotty K. case (supra), I am of the view that there is no merit in it. First of all, there is no material on record to show that both the case and the counter case have been conducted by the very same Public Prosecutor. Now, even if it is otherwise so, as held in the decision in Moidotty K. case (supra), there is no illegality in the said procedure, and it is only the principle of fairness which demands a different Prosecutor to conduct the counter case. In other words, I may say that the said fact alone is not sufficient to set aside the conviction. Thirdly, nothing has also been brought out to show that the accused was in any manner prejudiced by the conduct of the trial in the alleged CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 8 2025:KER:78107 manner.
13. Coming to the contention of the revision petitioner that many eyewitnesses to the incident have been suppressed by the prosecution, again, I am of the view that there is no merit in it. What the Court considers while appreciating the evidence is its quality and not the quantity. In the instant case, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have found the evidence of the material witnesses to be reliable and nothing has been brought out to take a different view. If so, in the light of the afore discussions, I do not find any illegality or error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC.
14. Coming to the question of sentence, it is to be noted that the Appellate Court after considering the nature of the offence, its gravity, the injuries sustained by the victim, and the facts and circumstances of this case, has taken a most lenient view and has imposed only a just and proper sentence on the accused. In such circumstances, I also find no CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 9 2025:KER:78107 reason to interfere with the sentence.
Ergo, I find no merit in this revision petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE jjj CRL.REV.PET NO. 336 OF 2016 10 2025:KER:78107 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 336/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Certified copy of the judgment dated 21.12.2015 in criminal Appeal No.131/14 passed by the Additional Dist & Sessions Judge N Paravu Certified copy of judgment dated 5/2/2014 in CC 1323/2008 of JFCM I Perumbavoor