Kerala High Court
Sharon @ Shanu vs State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2025
2025:KER:73141
Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 15TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 87 OF 2021
CRIME NO.507/2015 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2020 IN CRL.A NO.75 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
ALAPPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2019 IN SC NO.554
OF 2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 2-6/ ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 6:
1 SHARON @ SHANU,
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.SHAJI, ALUMPARAMBIL,
WARD NO.2, PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688 014.
2 RENJU SOMAN,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.SOMAN, KALLUPURACKAL VEEDU,
WARD NO.10, PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688 014.
3 KISHOR,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.UDYADAS, ANJILIPURACKAL VEEDU,
WARD NO.15,
PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688 014.
4 KIRANDAS
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.UDYADAS,
2025:KER:73141
Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021
-:2:-
ANJILIPURACKAL VEEDU,
WARD NO.15, PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688 014.
5 JISHNU
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.SALARENJUTHAN,
JISHNAVAN VEEDU,
KALAPPURA WARD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688 007.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SRI.V.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.09.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.215/2021, THE COURT ON
07.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73141
Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021
-:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 15TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 215 OF 2021
CRIME NO.507/2015 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2020 IN CRL.A NO.75 OF
2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
ALAPPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2019 IN SC NO.554
OF 2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
ARJUN @ ACHU,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.PUSHPANANDAN @ SAGAR PODIYAN,
ALUMPARMBU VEEDU, WARD NO.1,
PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH,
NOW RESIDING AT THE RENTED HOUSE OF BABY,
TEACHER, NORTH EASTERN SIDE OF RAILWAY GATE,
VADACKAL SOUTH,
WARD NO.1, PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN 688 014
BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SRI.V.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM PIN 682 031
2025:KER:73141
Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021
-:4:-
SRI SUDHEER.G, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.09.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.87/2021, THE COURT ON
07.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:73141
Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021
-:5:-
COMMON ORDER
The judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Alappuzha, in Crl.A.No.75/2019, is under challenge in these revisions, filed by the appellants 1 to 6 therein, who are the accused nos.1 to 6 in S.C.No.554/2017 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The aforesaid case arose out of Crime No.507/2015 of Punnapra Police Station, registered in connection with the commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 427 & 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short, 'IPC'). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the petitioners for the commission of all the above offences, except Section 294(b) IPC, and imposed the sentence by awarding various prison terms and fine. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, upheld the conviction of the petitioners for all the above offences, except 308 IPC. While acquitting the petitioners in respect of the offence under Section 308 IPC, the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence by reducing the prison terms awarded by the Trial Court for all the offences. Challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 15.12.2020 of the Additional Sessions 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:6:- Court -III, Alappuzha, the petitioners are here with these revision petitions.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to
6), after having made preparation for causing hurt and assault up on the de facto complainant (CW1), CW2 and CW3, criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and mounted physical assault upon the de facto complainant and CW2 and CW3, with the use of deadly weapons like sword and iron rods. The petitioners are said to have committed the aforesaid acts after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of inflicting bodily harm upon CW1 to CW3, and also causing destruction to the properties in their house. The first accused is alleged to have waved the sword towards the neck of CW1 with the intention of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but the above assault was warded off by CW1 with his right hand resulting in cut injury upon his right hand. The second and third accused are alleged to have beaten CW1 with iron rods, causing injuries to him. CW3, who came to the rescue of CW1, is said to have been attacked by the sixth accused by kicking upon her left cheek, and 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:7:- the accused Nos.4 & 5 trampling upon her chest. While the third accused is alleged to have beaten CW2 upon the left elbow, back and thigh, the fourth accused is alleged to have thrown away the rice pot from the house of the de facto complainant. The third accused is also alleged to have caused destruction to the television inside the hall room of that house and smashed the glass of the window panel. Thus, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution relied on the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW13, and the documents marked as Exts P1 to P10. That apart, seven material objects were identified as MO1 to MO7. Among the above witnesses, PW1 & PW2 are siblings, and PW3 is their mother, who sustained injuries in the assault committed by the petitioners after criminally trespassing into the residence of the aforesaid witnesses. PW4 is another independent eye-witness who testified in terms with the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 about the alleged acts committed by the accused, causing bodily harm to PW1 to PW3 and destruction to their household utensils. It is by relying on the evidence adduced by the aforesaid witnesses, that the Trial Court found that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the criminal acts attributed to the 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:8:- petitioners. The Appellate Court also found that there are no reasons to reject the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the above regard. However, the Appellate Court found that the offence under Section 308 IPC is not attracted, and accordingly, acquitted the accused in respect of the aforesaid offence. While upholding the conviction of the petitioners in connection with the other offences, the Appellate Court observed that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court was excessive. The Appellate Court, accordingly, reduced the tenure of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court in the following manner:
(i) The rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.500/-
awarded for the offence under Section 143 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/-.
(ii) The rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 147 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for 15 days and fine of Rs.1000/-.
(iii) The rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:9:- 148 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.1500/-.
(iv) The rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/-.
(v) The rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.2000/-.
(vi) The rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.500/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 341 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs.1000/-.
(vii) The rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence under Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs.2000/-.
(viii) The rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Trial Court for the commission of offence 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:10:- under Section 452 read with Section 149 IPC was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.1000/-.
(ix) The rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence under Section 308 read with Section 149 IPC, awarded by the Trial Court, was totally excluded by acquitting the accused in respect of the aforesaid offence.
5. On going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it could be seen that PW1 to PW4 had clearly stated before the Trial Court about the specific overt acts attributed against all accused. Though the above witnesses were subjected to extensive and very serious cross-examination, nothing could be brought out to disbelieve their testimonies. Needless to say, neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court could be found to be at fault for relying on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for arriving at the finding that the petitioners/accused committed the aforesaid offences alleged against them. The observation of the Appellate Court that the offence under Section 308 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case, need no alteration or modification.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the evidence adduced from the part of the prosecution are not sufficient to 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:11:- establish the offence of house trespass under Section 452 IPC alleged against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show that the house where the offence was allegedly committed by the accused, remained under the possession of PW 1 to PW3. Thus, it is pointed out that, in the absence of evidence showing the possession of the aforesaid house by PW1 to PW3, it cannot be said that the criminal trespass as envisaged under Section 441 IPC is brought out. The learned defence counsel would further argue that, once the offence of house trespass as envisaged under Section 452 IPC is not brought out, none of the other offences will lie since the case of the prosecution is that the accused resorted to the commission of all other offences after criminally trespassing into the house of PW1 to PW3. Accordingly, it is argued that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court went wrong in finding the petitioners guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offences.
7. For establishing the offence under Section 452 IPC, the prosecution has to show that the accused, after having made preparations for causing hurt or assault or wrongful restraint or fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, committed house trespass. Going by the provisions contained in Section 442 IPC, for establishing the house 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:12:- trespass, it has to be shown that the accused committed criminal trespass into a building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or building used as a place of worship or as a place of custody of property. For establishing criminal trespass as defined under Section 441 IPC, the following are the requirements to be fulfilled by the prosecution:
(1) Entering into or upon the property in possession of another with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or (2) Having lawfully entered into or upon such property unlawfully, remains there with the intent to intimidate, insult or annoy such person.
8. It is of no doubt that for a successful prosecution for the offence of criminal trespass, there should be materials to show that the property was in the possession of the person against whom the offence is committed. But the crucial question to be decided here is, what shall be the degree of proof required to establish such possession? Is it necessary that in each and every case involving the offence of criminal trespass, the person complaining of criminal trespass should produce title deeds, tax receipts and other relevant records or certificates from the Village Officer or local authority, showing that such person is in possession of the property? Is it necessary in all cases involving criminal 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:13:- trespass that the person against whom the offence of criminal trespass is committed shall formally depose before the Trial Court, in the same manner as that of a civil suit based on possession, that he is in possession of the property upon which the accused committed criminal trespass? In my view, the degree of proof required in all cases of criminal trespass, cannot be said to be the same.
9. There may be cases in which the root cause of the crime would be the rival claims over immovable property in respect of which one party may allege that his counterpart has criminally trespassed and resorted to further physical assault and violence. The defence in such cases might rest upon the plea that the property concerned would be either in the exclusive possession of the accused, or in the joint possession of the accused, along with aggrieved person, and hence there was no need for the accused to commit criminal trespass upon the property remaining in his possession. There would be yet another type of cases where the properties of the accused and the aggrieved persons would be lying either contiguously or in close proximity so that the exact place of occurrence would be the subject matter of dispute with reference to its possession. In such cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to bring home the requisite evidence by way of title 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:14:- documents, revenue records, plans, and also assertion by way of oral testimony of the persons concerned, to show that the accused entered into the property remaining under the possession of the affected persons, and resorted to the objectionable acts. But the same degree of proof of possession cannot be insisted in those cases where the persons facing criminal prosecution had no reason at all to enter into the property of the aggrieved persons, except for meeting the persons aggrieved by the offence. In such cases, where the nature of the case, as revealed by the records, makes it clear that the accused are total strangers to the place where the offence was committed, there is no point in saying that the prosecution ought to have brought forth the title documents, revenue records, plans etc., as documents proving the possession of the aggrieved persons, or that the aggrieved persons should have testified specifically pointing to their possession over the property where trespass was committed; in the same manner as that of a civil suit where the possession is the matter in issue. It would be enough in such categories of cases, if the evidence of the aggrieved persons, when considered in totality, would show that the accused entered into their property and resorted to violence. The oral testimonies of such witnesses about the entry of the accused into their property and indulging in violence, would 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:15:- bring home the requirement of criminal trespass as envisaged under Section 441 IPC.
10. In the case on hand, none of the accused are having a contention that they are in joint possession of the property where the offence was committed, along with PW1 to PW3. Nor had the accused got a case that they are having property in close proximity or contiguous with the property of PW1 to PW3 so that it would be difficult to ascertain whether the exact place where the offence was committed came within the possession of the accused or aggrieved persons. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused who came to the residential house of PW1 to PW3, where they were having no business at all, had committed criminal trespass into that house and resorted to violence by causing hurt to PW1 to PW3 with the use of dangerous weapons. In such a case, there is absolutely no merit in the argument that the prosecution ought to have produced the possession certificate showing the possession of the aforesaid residential property of PW1 to PW3. So also, it cannot be said that PW1 to PW3 ought to have stated in explicit words that the house where the accused resorted to physical violence upon them, remained under their possession. As far as the present case is concerned, the evidence adduced by PW1 to PW3 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:16:- would make it abundantly clear that, while the above three witnesses were sitting at the front portion of their house, at about 10:00 p.m., on the date of the crime, the accused criminally trespassed into their house with dangerous weapons and resorted to physical violence by inflicting bodily harm upon them, and also causing destruction to their household property. The oral evidence adduced by PW1 to PW3 in the above regard would suffice to establish their possession over the residential property upon which the accused had criminally trespassed and resorted to the commission of the crime.
11. Relying on the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sivan v. State -CI of Police, Devikulam [2025 KHC Online 1022] , the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the absence of evidence regarding the ownership or possession of the property, it is not possible to substantiate the ingredients of criminal trespass. The aforesaid decision has been rendered by the learned Single Judge by following the Division Bench decision of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 223]. Anil Kumar's case (supra) was a case where the house in which the crime was committed admittedly remained under the joint possession of the accused, deceased and PW2 and PW5. It is under the above peculiar set of facts where the 2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:17:- witnesses, deceased and the accused were living jointly in the same house, that the Division Bench held that it cannot be said that the entry of the accused into such a house would be unlawful and amounts to criminal trespass. Thus, the law laid down by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar's case (supra) has absolutely no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also pertinent to note that the facts of the aforesaid case (Sivan v. State), in which the learned Single Judge has rendered the judgment, are totally different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is clear from paragraph No.11 of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Sivan's case (supra) that the property of the accused in that case existed at a distance of just five meters away from the house of the injured persons. Furthermore, in paragraph No.15 of the aforesaid judgment, it is observed that PW1 in that case had admitted during cross -examination that there is no voters' list, ration card or identity card to show that he was residing in the said house. There is absolutely no such challenge in the case on hand, and hence it is not possible to say that the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge in Sivan's case (supra), is applicable to the present case.
2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:18:-
12. As far as the present case is concerned, there is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or error in the impugned judgement rendered by the Appellate Court. The evidence adduced by the prosecution has been appreciated by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in the correct perspective. The Appellate Court has rightly held that the aforesaid evidence would not constitute the offence under Section 308 IPC. So also, it is seen that the Appellate Court has made substantial reduction in the tenure of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court. The sentence awarded by the Appellate Court is commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the accused. It is not possible to further reduce the term of imprisonment awarded by the Appellate Court, since the maximum tenure of imprisonment awarded by the Appellate Court is simple imprisonment for one month. Since the Appellate Court has directed the sentences to run concurrently, and set off has been allowed, the maximum tenure of imprisonment which the petitioners would have to undergo would be much lesser than one month, if they are promptly remitting the fine amount ordered by the Appellate Court. Accordingly, I find that there is absolutely no merit in these revision petitions.
2025:KER:73141 Crl.R.P.Nos.87/2021 & 215/2021 -:19:- In the result, both these revision petitions are hereby dismissed. The Registry is directed to transmit the case records, along with a copy of this order, to the Trial Court, for the immediate enforcement of the sentence awarded by the Appellate Court.
(Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE DST