Kerala High Court
Karthikeyan vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2025
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012 1
2025:KER:5169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 3RD MAGHA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2012 IN Crl.A
NO.406 OF 2010 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2010 IN CC
NO.539 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,
CHERTHALA
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KARTHIKEYAN
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KESAVAN, KILIYANTHARA VEEDU, CHANDIROOR.P.O.,
AROOR PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.JOSEPH
SRI.K.K.MOIDEEN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 SUDEESH
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN, THYVEETTIL, CHANDIROOR.P.O., AROOR
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012 2
2025:KER:5169
PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP-SMT.MAYA M.N
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012 3
2025:KER:5169
ORDER
Impugning the order of the learned Sessions Judge,
Alappuzha in Crl.Appeal No.406/2010, the accused preferred this
criminal revision petition. The offences alleged against the
revision petitioner/accused are under Sections 323 and 324 of the
erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
2. The trial court convicted and sentenced the
accused and imposed substantive sentence and fine. In appeal,
the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction, but modified the
sentence imposed.
3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, the
accused on 29.05.2006 at 11 a.m, attacked the defacto
complainant and caused injuries to the right ring finger and right
middle finger by using an iron rod and thereby committed the
aforesaid offences.
4. Before the trial court, PW1 to PW7 were
examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5. Thereafter, the accused was
examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The trial court after a full fledged trial, sentenced the
accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months u/s
324 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month u/s 323 IPC.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012 4
2025:KER:5169
5. Impugning the judgment of the learned
Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.406/2010 before
the learned Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. In appeal, the Sessions
Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence
imposed.
6. Impugning the judgment of the learned Sessions
Judge in Crl.Appeal No.406/2010, the accused preferred this
revision petition.
7. Smt.Maya M.N., the learned Public Prosecutor
supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Both the
trial court and the appellate court appreciated the evidence on
record and arrived at a proper conclusion. No interference from
this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C is warranted
in this matter.
8. Per contra, Adv. C.A.Joseph, learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned
judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unsustainable. Both
the trial court and the appellate court overlooked the serious
illegalities, irregularities and improprieties. Therefore, the
intervention of this Court in this matter is absolutely essential.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012 5
2025:KER:5169
9. I have heard the rival submissions of the counsel
for the parties.
10. At the time of final hearing of this criminal
revision petition, the learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner/accused submitted that, even though he has urged
several grounds in the revision memorandum, he preferred to
argue the matter only on leniency.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court and
modified by the appellate court, is too harsh and excessive,
considering the nature and gravity of the offences and the
circumstances in which it was committed.
Considering the nature of offence, facts and
circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the substantive
sentence awarded in this case can be modified and reduced to
imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
In the result,
(a) Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
(b) The substantive sentence imposed in this matter
is modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the
court.
(c) The fine imposed and the default sentence are
maintained.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1160 OF 2012 6
2025:KER:5169
(d) The revision petitioner shall surrender before
the trial court within 45 days from the date of this order
to receive the sentence.
(e) The court below shall execute the order in the
modified manner.
sd/
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
jm/
