Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Biju, S/o. Vareeth – Petitioner
Versus
P.K. Ayyappan, S/o. Kannan and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. Rev. Pet No. 1026 of 2012
Decided On : 19-06-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Sri. V.C. Sarath.
For the Respondents: Sri. E.C. Bineesh-SR.PP., Sri. Anandan Pillai, Sri. P.A. Chandran.
Failure to apply appropriate legal procedures led to a miscarriage of justice, making the conviction invalid.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 210 - Procedure where complaint case and police investigation exist - The trial court should have followed mandatory provisions to club police case with complaint case. Failure led to prejudice and conviction being vitiated. (Paras 10-15)
(B) Evidence - Credibility - A witness’ overall testimony must be assessed rather than in isolated portions; contradictory statements rendered witness unreliable. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The revision petition arises from the petitioner’s conviction after a trial for assault under relevant IPC sections, which included multiple accused in initial police investigations. Arguments included challenges to witness credibility and procedural compliance.
Findings of Court:
The Court found significant procedural errors and contradictions that warranted a reassessment of the initial conviction.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the trial court failed to comply with provisions regarding prosecution overlap and whether witness credibility affected the verdict.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized strict adherence to procedural law and consideration of witness reliability in criminal trials, highlighting that the failure to try related cases together precluded a fair trial.
Result: Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedure for trial of related allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges concerning the violation of procedural law. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. discrepancy in witness testimonies undermines credibility. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. misreading of evidence warrants intervention. (Para 21) |
ORDER :
(KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.)
The revision petitioner, who was the 1st accused in C.C.No.1160 of 2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor (for short, 'the trial court'), challenges his conviction and sentence under Sections 323,324 and 326 of the IPC.
2. The above calendar case arose from a private complaint preferred by the 1st respondent herein before the trial court against the petitioner and four others. The incident pertaining to the private complaint took place on 4.2.1988 at 6.30 p.m. in front of the courtyard of the building where the complainant and the accused were residing. Initially the Ayyampuzha police registered crime in respect of the said incident against five persons including the petitioner herein alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. After investigation, final report was filed against three persons, the petitioner herein and two others for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Later on the trial court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C and numbered the case as C.C.No. 1161/05.
3. The 1st respondent also preferred a private complaint in respect of the very same incident before the trial court against the petitioners and four others against whom the police initially registered the FIR alleging the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The allegations in the private complaint against the petitioner/1st accused and the remaining four accused are as follows:
The complainant is residing with his family, consisting of his wife and four children in the labour line F division, 4th block, Kallala estate. The line building has eight rooms. The complainant is occupying the room at the extreme north. The accused and the members of his family are residing in the extreme south room. The intervening rooms are lying vacant. For access to the room which the complainant has occupied, he has to pass through the front side of the room in which the accused are residing. On 4.2.1988 at 6.30 p.m., while the complainant was passing through the front courtyard of the building, the accused 1 to 3 suddenly came from behind the 4th room, which they were occupying and saying that he would not be spared, the first accused struck him with a stick on the front side of his head. The accused 2 and 3, in the meantime, kicked repeatedly, causing him to fall. While he was trying to get up, the 2nd accused got the stick from the 1st accused and struck him again on his head. He screamed aloud, hearing which his wife rushed to his rescue, which enraged the 2nd accused, and he struck her repeatedly on her right hand, causing a bone fracture and also kicked her in different parts of her body. The other accused also fisted and kicked him. The 4th accused caught hold of her hair and kicked her. Hearing the cry of the complainant and his wife, those who were working nearby rushed to the spot, seeing which the accused left the place.
4. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses, the trial court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused Nos. 1 to 5, and the case was taken to file as C.P. No. 3/2003. Since the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam in compliance with all legal requirements where the case was taken as S.C. No. 384/2003 and was later made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc-II), Ernakulam for trial.
5. The accused entered appearance pursuant to the summons issu
