Kerala High Court
Kunjumon @ Manoharan vs State Of Kerala on 19 September, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
2025:KER:70109
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2006 IN Crl.A NO.77 OF 2006
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ARISING OUT
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2006 IN CC NO.301 OF 2002 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE
COURT) ADIMALI
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KUNJUMON @ MANOHARAN
S/O.KOCHURAMAN, VILAYIL VEEDU,, ELKUNNU KARA,
KUNCHITHANNI VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.TOMY
SRI.MATHEW SKARIA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,,
ERNAKULAM.
SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:70109
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006
2
ORDER
This Crl.R.P. has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence of the accused in CC No.301 of 2002 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly (for short, the trial court) confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)- I, Thodupuzha (for short, the appellate court) in Crl.Appeal No. 77 of 2006.
2. The petitioner was the sole accused before the trial court. He faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.01.2002 at 1.00 p.m., on the mud road situated near to the house of the petitioner, the petitioner brought acid in M.O.I bucket and poured the same on PWs 1 and 2, his own brothers, causing them serious burn injuries and thereby committed the offence.
3. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the prosecution. M.Os I to V were identified. On the side of the defence, DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and he was convicted for the said offence. He was found not guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC and 2025:KER:70109 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006 3 was acquitted of that charge. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence of the trial court before the appellate court in Crl.Appeal No. 77 of 2006. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. This Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court.
4. Since there was no representation for the petitioner continuously, I appointed Sri.Rahul Sunil as the Amicus Curiae.
5. I have heard Sri.Rahul Sunil, the learned Amicus Curiae, and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. I place on record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.
7. The parties are closely related. The petitioner and PWs 1 and 2 are brothers. PW3 is the mother of the petitioner and PWs 1 and 2, and PWs 4 and 5 are the children of PW1. DW1 is the wife of the petitioner, and DW2 is the sister of petitioner and PWs 1 and 2. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the petitioner.
2025:KER:70109 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006 4
8. The incident took place on the mud road in front of the house of the petitioner. The property adjacent to the house of the petitioner belonged to the father of PWs 1, 2 and the petitioner. On his death, it devolved upon PWs 1 to 3 and the petitioner. There was a civil dispute in respect of the property between the petitioner on one side and PWs 1 and 2 on the other side. On the date of the incident, PWs 1 and 2 along with their workers came to the said property to pluck pepper from the pepper vines. According to the prosecution version, while PWs 1 and 2 along with their workers were plucking pepper, the petitioner came there carrying a bucket containing acid and poured acid on PW1 and when PW2 rushed to the spot seeing the same, he poured acid on PW2 as well. The evidence on record would show that PWs 1 and 2 sustained serious acid burn injuries on their face and other parts of the body. Exts.P3, P4 and P6, coupled with the evidence of PWs 8 and 11, would prove the same. It has come out in evidence that the accused has also sustained burn injuries, which is evident from Ext.P1 and the testimony of PW8.
9. It is a case where the accused admits his presence at the place of the incident. In fact, he admits the incident itself, though in a different fashion. According to him, it was PW2, who poured 2025:KER:70109 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006 5 acid on his face and while he attempted to ward it off, acid fell on the bodies of PWs 1 and 2 and they sustained injuries. In order to substantiate this version, he examined DWs 1 and 2.
10. There is the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 to prove the prosecution version, and the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 to prove the defence version. PWs 1 and 2 categorically deposed that while they along with their workers were plucking pepper from the pepper vines, the petitioner came there carrying a bucket with acid and poured acid on their faces, causing injuries. The bucket and cup carried by the petitioner were marked as M.Os I and II. PWs 4 and 5 deposed in tune with the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Even though PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined, nothing tangible could be extracted from their testimony to discredit their version.
11. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that PWs 1 and 2 being interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be accepted as such without any corroboration. It is settled law that the evidence of injured witnesses must be given due weightage. The learned Amicus Curiae highlighted inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs 4 and 5, especially that of PW4, and argued that their evidence cannot be used to corroborate PWs 1 and 2, as they are also highly interested witnesses being the children of PW1. PW4 did not 2025:KER:70109 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006 6 depose that the petitioner poured acid on PW1. He only spoke about acid being poured on PW2. He further deposed that the petitioner was carrying a knife and he inflicted a cut injury to PW2. It is true that even PW2 does not support such a case. However, barring that embellishment, the rest of his evidence cannot be discarded. Minor contradictions and embellishments in the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae do not affect the fabric of the prosecution case. The evidence of PW3, the mother, also corroborates the version of PWs 1, 2, 4 and
5. True, PW3 did not see the actual pouring of acid. However, she deposed that while PWs 1 and 2 were plucking pepper from the pepper vines, the petitioner approached PW2 carrying a bucket in his hand. Thereafter, she saw the petitioner running away and PW2 rolling on the ground. She also deposed that there were burn injuries on PW2 and his clothes were also burned. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has no case that PW3, the mother of PW1, PW2 and the petitioner has any animosity towards him. The evidence of PW3 goes against the defence version that it was PW2 who attacked the petitioner and poured acid on him.
12. To prove the defence case, DWs 1 and 2 were examined. DW1 stated that PW4 brought acid in a bucket, kept it at the place 2025:KER:70109 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006 7 of the incident, it remained there for two and a half hours, and thereafter, PW2 took it and poured it on the petitioner, whereas, the version of DW2 is that PW4 brought the acid in the bucket, and handed it over to PW2, who poured it on the petitioner. These are mutually contradictory. That apart, if the defence case that it was PW4 who brought the acid to the place of incident and handed it over to PW2 were true, then definitely, when PW4 was examined, such a question would have been put to him. But when PW4 was examined, there was no such case at all. It is true that the accused is not bound to enter the witness box in all cases, and no adverse inference can ordinarily be drawn for his failure to do so. But it is a peculiar case, where the accused has raised a specific defence that it was PW2 who brought acid in a bucket and poured on him. If that be so, instead of examining DWs 1 and 2 to prove that defence version, the accused himself could have entered into the box.
13. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the defence have failed to probabilise the defence case set up by him. On the other hand, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner brought the acid in M.O.I bucket and poured it on PWs1 and 2. The evidence on record 2025:KER:70109 CRL.REV.PET NO. 4158 OF 2006 8 would show that PWs 1 and 2 have sustained serious injuries and they were in the hospital as inpatient for more than two months.
14. Since, there are concurrent finding of two Courts, this Court would be circumspect in invoking its revisional powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. It is only if the decisions rendered by two courts could be said to be either perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke its revisional powers. I have carefully gone through the entire records, evidence, proceedings and the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court. I find no impropriety or illegality therein warranting interference under the exercise of revisional powers vested with this Court. The sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court also appears to be reasonable.
There is no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition, and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE GBG