THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2026

This criminal revision petition is preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad-hoc)-II, Kozhikode in Crl.A.No. 521 of 2012.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the accused No.3 in C.C. No. 494 of 2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra and the appellant in Crl.A. No.521 of 2012. He stood for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 341 IPC with a default clause and he was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 323 IPC with a default clause. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- of the offene under Section 324 of IPC with a default clause.

4. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, confirming the conviction and the sentence.

5. The prosecution case in brief is that on 15.06.2007, at about 4 p.m., the appellant along with two other accused wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and voluntarily cause hurt to him with a stone on his head.

6. Before the trial court PWs. 1 to 10 were examined and Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and D1 to D6 were marked. The learned Magistrate after evaluating the evidence found the appellant guilty and convicted him.

7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge are illegal irregular and improper. Both the courts have missed out various illegalities and irregularities in the case.

8. The trial court and the appellate court have failed to consider the fact that the weapon allegedly used for the commission of offence was not recovered by the police. PW1, the injured, has no definite and consistent case as to the weapon of offence. The investigating officer has not even cared to seize the weapon of offence.

9. It is further pointed out that the doctor who initially examined the injured PW1 was not examined nor the wound certificate produced. Instead another doctor (PW5) was examined who treated the injured subsequently.

10. It is further submitted that the trial court ought not have convicted the accused on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the injured. The learned counsel would further submit that the trial court and the appellate court have totally discarded the defence evidence and arrived at a conclusion by appreciating the prosecution evidence alone. The learned counsel submitted that due weight must be given to the defence evidence also while appreciating the evidence. The counsel would further urge that the trial court and the appellate has failed to note that this case is a counter blast of an earlier incident between the accused and the witnesses.

11. It is well settled that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and the power of the revisional court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [(1999) 2 SCC 452 = 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:

“5. … In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Or