Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
RASHEED, S/O. MEERAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2007 | CRL.A NO.792 OF 2004 | CC NO.62 OF 2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Ms. Vrinda Babu
For the Respondents: Sri Renjith George, Sr PP
Court affirms the conviction under IPC Sections 448 & 323, emphasizing witness credibility despite minor inconsistencies.
Headnote:This judgment involves the interpretation and application of Sections 448 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where the petitioner challenges the conviction and sentence from the lower courts. The facts unfold a case of criminal trespass and voluntary hurt against the petitioner, found guilty by both lower courts. The findings relate to the evidence given by witnesses PW1 and PW2, with the revision petitioner arguing for inconsistencies in their statements. The court determined that the testimony was credible despite minor discrepancies, reaffirming the convictions. The main issue focuses on the evidential reliability of the witnesses. The court ruled that minor discrepancies should not render witness testimony unreliable. The outcome confirms the petitioner's conviction while reducing the sentence to one month under each section, to run concurrently.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH TH WEDNESDAY, THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 183 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2006 IN CRL.A NO.792 OF
2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOZHIKODE ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2004 IN CC NO.62 OF 2002 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,PERAMBRA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RASHEED, S/O. MEERAN, KURACHUNDU AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RENJITH GEORGE, SR PP, SMT.VRINDA BABU AMICUS CURIAE.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The concurrent verdicts of the Fast Track Special Court (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perambra, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offence under Sections 448 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC'), are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.01.2002, at about
9:30 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into the terrace of the house of PW1 & PW2, and when the above witnesses questioned him about his presence there, he inflicted voluntary hurt upon those witnesses. It is alleged that the petitioner beat PW1 & PW2 with hands and dashed the head of PW1 to the wall of the water tank, causing injuries. The final report filed by the Station House Officer of Koorachundu Police Station in connection with the said crime, was taken on to files by the learned Magistrate as C.C.No.62/2002. In the trial conducted in the said case, 11 prosecution witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW11 and six documents were marked as Exts P1 to P6. The learned Magistrate, after the conclusion of the trial and hearing both sides, found the petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Sections 448 & 323 IPC, and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the commission of the aforesaid offences. Though the petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, declined to interfere, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. It is aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Appellate Court and the Trial Court that the petitioner is here with this revision.
3. As per the order dated 16.09.2025, Adv. Ms.Vrinda Babu was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioner since the counsel for the revision petitioner had relinquished vakalath, and the revision petitioner did not engage a new counsel to present his case.
4. Heard Adv. Ms.Vrinda Babu, the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. The Trial Court relied on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 to arrive at the finding that the petitioner criminally trespassed into the terrace portion of their house and resorted to physical assault upon them when they questioned the aforesaid act. The learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioner would contend that there are discrepancies in the statements of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, and hence it is not safe to rely on their evidence in the absence of corroboration. It is pointed out that two other witnesses cited by the prosecution had turned hostile to the prosecution. It is further submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that PW1 and PW2 nurtured enmity with the petitioner in connection with a criminal case registered against them upon the complaint of the petitioner.
6. On going through the impugned judgments of the courts below and the other prosecution records, it is not possible to say that there are serious anomalies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW
