Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49051
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
MADHU K.K. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 462 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY), SHRI.JIJO ISAAC
For the Respondents: SR PP, SMT. SEETHA S
The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the legal obligation to maintain judicial restraint in appellate reviews.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323 & 506 (i) r/w 34 - Criminal Revision against conviction and sentence - Revision petitioner convicted under Sections 323 and 341, sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation - Appellate court modifies sentence and confirms conviction - Court affirms the findings of trial and appellate court due to absence of illegality or impropriety in their decisions. (Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 357(3) - Compensation - Modification of compensation amount from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 due to nature of injuries sustained by complainant.
Facts of the case:
Prosecution cases involve threats and assaults due to a civil dispute leading to injuries to complainant, confirmed by medical evidence and certificates.
Findings of Court:
Conviction under Sections 323 and 341 IPC confirmed but compensation reduced. Sentence modified but upheld.
Issues: The core issues included the legality of the conviction and appropriateness of the sentence modifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of judicial restraint in revising conviction unless clear illegality is demonstrated and recognized the minor nature of injuries in determining compensation.
Result: Revision Petition allowed in part, with upholding of conviction but reduction of compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the alleged offences and injuries sustained. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. review of trial and appellate court’s findings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial restraint in revisional jurisdiction and compensation adjustments. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner as per the judgment dated 31.05.2019 in C.C. No.214 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koothattukulam and the judgment dated 24.02.2021 in Crl.Appeal No.175 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge – VI, Ernakulam. It was a prosecution initiated against the petitioner and another under Sections 341, 323 & 506 (i) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ').
2. The prosecution case is that, on 12.02.2018 at 4.00 pm, due to the previous enmity regarding civil dispute, the first accused, in furtherance of sharing of common intention with the second accused, threatened PW1 to kill when he reached along with PW2 to measure his property situated at Koorumala at Mutholapuram in Elanji Village. Meanwhile, the second accused also reached there, caught hold of his shirt's collar, pulled him towards PW2 and PW3 and struck him with hand on his face and head. Hence, both the accused are alleged to have committed aforesaid offences. After the incident, PW1 reached the Taluk Hospital Muvattupuzha on the same day at 5.25 pm, where he was examined by PW4, who issued Ext.P3 certificate. Later on 24.02.2018 at 11.50 am, PW1 reached the Police Station Koothattukulam where Ext.P1 statement was recorded by PW5, on the basis of which, he registered Ext.P4 FIR, which reached the court on 01.03.2018. PW6, on deputed with the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar as pointed out by PW1. PW6, then arrested the accused and released them on bail on execution of Ext.P6 bail bond. He has also filed Ext.P7 report to add the correct name and address of the accused. After recording statement of the witnesses, PW6 completed the investigation and laid final report.
3. To substantiate the case, PW1 to PW6 were examined on the side of the prosecution. Exts.P1 to P7 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the 1st accused is not guilty for the offences under Section s 341 , 323 & 506(i) r/w 34 of the IPC . The 2nd accused, who is the Revision petitioner herein was also found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 (i) of the . However, the 2nd accused, who is the Revision petitioner herein was found guilty for the offences under Section s 323 and 341 of the . The Revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 341 . The Revision petitioner was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month more.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the Revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Judge - VI, Ernakulam considered the appeal and confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. The appellate court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 . The petitioner was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Pub
