Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Koyyodan Bhaskaran And Ors.- Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1208 OF 2015
Decided On : 07-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Sri.C.R.Sivakumar
For the Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Smt. Rekha.S
The high court affirmed the conviction of accused for rioting and intimidation based on consistent witness testimonies, highlighting its limited revisional jurisdiction to rectify errors or erroneous decisions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(1), 323, 324 r/w 149 - The accused were charged with rioting armed with deadly weapons and intimidating the complainant. The trial court found them guilty under various sections while acquitting them of some charges. The appeal court upheld the conviction, modifying the sentence to a fine. The court examined the evidence and upheld the findings regarding the place of occurrence and the identity of the accused. (Paras 3-6, 8-12)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - The high court's authority in revision is confined to reviewing correctness, legality, and propriety of decisions made by lower courts, and will only intervene in cases of palpable error or non-compliance with legal provisions. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
Accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant, causing injuries, with evidence corroborating the occurrence as presented by the prosecution witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The lower courts’ convictions were supported by consistent witness testimonies, and the sentence was deemed lenient as it was limited to fines without imprisonment.
Issues: The primary issue was the credibility of witness testimonies and the alleged anomaly regarding the place of occurrence, which the court found did not affect the overall conclusion of guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisiting the evidence, the court concluded that no significant discrepancy in witnesses' accounts justified upsetting the lower courts' decisions. Conviction based on substantial evidence affirmed.
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The high court exercised limited revisionary power, reviewing correctness, legality, and propriety of lower court decisions, and dismissed the revision petition. (!) - The court upheld the convictions for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 323, and 506(1) r/w 149, and found no ground to interfere with the lower courts’ findings; sentence was kept as fines, with compensation as specified. (!) (!) - The alleged anomaly regarding the place of occurrence was found not to affect the overall conclusion of guilt, and no interference with convictions was warranted. (!) (!) - The Sessions Judge’s lenient sentence (fines) was deemed appropriate, and no modification to sentencing was required. (!) (!) - Prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW7) consistently supported the occurrence and the conduct of the accused, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The trial court convicted under 143, 147, 323, 506(1) r/w 149 IPC and acquitted under 148 and 324; appellate court confirmed conviction and modified sentence to fine. (!) - Required procedural history: revision petition filed challenging verdicts dated 30.01.2014 and 12.06.2015; learned counsel represented petitioners and State. (!) - Time and place details of the incident: occurrence around 21:15 on 29.03.2010; multiple witnesses testified; scene mahazar prepared; no serious anomaly altering the place of occurrence. (!) (!) (!) - Court concluded no palpable error or non-compliance with provisions justifying interference; revision petition dismissed. (!) (!) - The accused were alleged to be government servants; argument for leniency noted but rejected. (!)
What is the scope of the high court's revisional jurisdiction in this case?
What are the reasons for maintaining the conviction and dismissing the revision petition?
What is the status of the place of occurrence controversy and its impact on the verdicts?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observation on evidence and testimonies supporting conviction (Para 1) |
| 2. calculation of revisional jurisdiction and its limits to correct errors (Para 2) |
| 3. prosecution's claims of unlawful assembly and rioting. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. defense arguments on evidence discrepancies. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's affirmation of lower courts' findings. (Para 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant (Para 10) |
| 7. revisional jurisdiction limitations. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Revision Petition has been filed by the accused in C.C.No.469/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara, challenging the verdict in the said case dated 30.012014 and the verdict of the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in Crl.Appeal No.119/2014 dated 12.06.2015 arising therefrom. State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is the respondent herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the verdicts impugned and the trial court records to exercise the limited power of revision available to this Court.
3. The prosecution case is that at about 21.15 p.m on29.03.2010, the accused persons in prosecution of their common object formed themselves into an unlawful assembly knowing that they are all members of the said assembly, with intention to commit rioting armed with deadly weapons, criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons manhandled the defacto complainant and caused hurt on him being members of the unlawful assembly, despite criminally intimidating him. On this premise, the prosecution alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(1), 323, 324 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC’for short), by the revision petitioners.
4. On getting final report filed before the trial court, the learned Judge proceeded with the trial on completing the pre-trial formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No defense evidence was adduced even though opportunity was provided to the accused to adduce defense evidence.
5. In consideration of the prosecution evidence, the trial court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 506(1) read with 149 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offences while acquitting them for the offences under Sections 148 and 324 of IPC. Thus the matter was taken up in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and on re-appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence to payment of fine alone.
6. The sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge is as under:
“(1) For the offence u/s.143 of IPC the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
(2) For the offence u/s.147 of IPC, the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
(3) For the offence u/s.323 of IPC, the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
(4) For the offence u/s.506(1) of IPC, the accused/appellants are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.
(5) 50% of the total fine amount, on realization, shall be paid to PW1 as compensation u/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C.”
7. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the trial court as well as the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and thereby the verdicts impugned suffer from illegality, infirmity and perversity. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused that there is serious anomaly with regard to the place of occurrence, as deposed by th
