Kerala High Court
Saidalavi vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 976 OF 2014
CRIME NO.179/2010 OF Melattur Police Station,
Malappuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.07.2014 IN SC
NO.94 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, MANJERI
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
K.P.SAIDALAVI
S/O KUNHENU,KUNNATHUPALLICHALIL HOUSE,
MANNARMALA,PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
MELATTUR POLICE STATION
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV SHEEBA THOMAS
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.06.2025, THE COURT ON 17.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.Appeal No.976 of 2014
================================
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in S.C.No.94 of 2011 on the files of Additional
Sessions Court-II, Manjeri, has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging
conviction and sentence imposed in the above case dated 11.07.2014. State
of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the
respondent.
2. Parties in this appeal will be referred to as `prosecution’
and `accused’ hereafter.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and
the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the trial court records and the
judgment under challenge.
4. In this matter, police investigated Crime No.179/2010 of
Melattur Police Station and filed final report before the Court of Sessions,
Manjeri, alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 3
under Sections 323, 341, 308 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC‘
for short). When the case was made out to the Additional Sessions Court-
II, Manjeri, the Additional Sessions Court framed charge for the said
offences and tried the case. During trial, PW1 to PW12 were examined
and Exts.P1 to P7 and M.O1 were marked on the side of the prosecution.
5. Even though opportunity was provided to the accused to
adduce defense evidence, after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of
Cr.P.C, no defense evidence adduced.
6. On evaluation of evidence, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge found that the accused was guilty for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 341 while acquitting him for the
offences punishable under Sections 308 and 506(ii) of IPC. Accordingly
the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 323 and in default of payment of fine, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month also was imposed. Similarly, for
the offence under Section 341 of IPC, the accused was sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month and it was ordered that
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 4
substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
7. While challenging the conviction and sentence imposed
by the trial court, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused
that the trial court went wrong in finding the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC without support of
convincing evidence and hence the conviction and sentence are
unsustainable. Therefore, conviction and sentence would require
interference. The learned counsel also argued that if the conviction is
found sustainable, then sentence may be modified to avoid jail sentence by
imposing fine and compensation.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contention
raised by the accused and argued that the evidence of PW4, PW6 and PW7
satisfactorily proved the prosecution allegation which would justify the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for the offences
punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC. But the learned Public
Prosecutor not seriously opposed interference in sentence.
9. In view of the rival submissions, the points to be decided
are as follows:
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 5
(i) Whether the trial court went wrong in holding that the
accused committed offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC?
(ii) Whether the finding of the trial court that the accused
committed offence under Section 341 of IPC is erroneous?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
10. Here, PW4, the defacto complainant, deposed that at
about 9 a.m on 03.06.2010 when he was going to MEA Engineering
College to drop his daughter (who was examined as PW5) at the college
and when he reached near the Village Office, Kariavattam, the accused
overtook his car and blocked him. Then the accused pulled out PW4 and
shouted on PW4 that the accused would kill him. Then he caught hold of
him by his chest and fisted him on his face. Thereafter the accused took a
chopper from his car and attempted to chop PW4 aiming his body, but he
evaded; and thereby the chopper hit on the door of the car. Again the
accused attempted to assault PW4 by using the chopper and his daughter
restrained the same. According to PW4, if the chopper had inflicted injury
on his body, death would have caused to him. PW4 deposed further that
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 6the daughter of PW4 cried allowed and thereby one Raju and Ayyappan
reached the spot and saved them. PW4 identified M.O1 as the chopper
used by the accused and also he admitted Ext.P3 FIS given by him.
11. PW5 examined in this case is the daughter of PW4 and
she supported the prosecution case on par with the evidence tendered by
PW5. PW6 is Raju, who reached the place of occurrence as stated by PW4
and he also deposed that he witnessed the accident in tune with the
versions of PW4 and PW5 after identifying M.O1 weapon. In this matter,
Ext.P3 FIS was recorded by PW3, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police,
Melattur Police Station and Ext.P4 scene mahazar was prepared by him.
Recovery of M.O1 on the basis of Ext.P1 mahazar was deposed by PW7.
Ext.P5 is the wound certificate pertaining to PW4 proved through PW11,
the C.M.O at Moulana Hospital, Perinthalmanna suggesting simple
injuries such as (1) complaints of left side chest pain and lower abdominal
pain due to blows sustained, (2) hematoma over the right side of forehead,
(3) multiple abrasions over back. In fact during cross examination the
evidence of the occurrence witnesses not at all shaken in any manner,
making the same as credible and reliable.
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 7
12. The accused raised plea of innocence, which was
negatived by the trial court relying on the evidence already discussed
which would show that the accused wrongfully restrained PW4 and caused
simple hurt to him thereby the accused committed offences punishable
under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC.
13. On scrutinising the evidence discussed, the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the trial court
wrongfully committed the accused under Sections 321 and 343 of IPC
without support of convincing evidence could not be sustained and
therefore conviction is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the conviction
imposed by the trial court is confirmed.
14. Regarding the sentence, it could be noticed that even
though the accused alleged to have committed offences under Sections 308
and 506(ii) of the IPC also, he was acquitted for want of evidence. Section
323 of IPC provides imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or
with both. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 341 of
IPC, punishment provided is simple imprisonment for a term which may
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 8
extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or with
both. Therefore, by imposing fine and reasonable compensation to PW4,
the sentence can be modified in the interest of justice.
Point No.(iii)
15. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
The conviction imposed by the trial court is confirmed while modifying
the sentence as under:
16. The appellant/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty thousand only) under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In default of
payment of fine and compensation, the 1st accused shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six weeks. For the offence punishable under
Section 341 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to pay fine to the tune of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine,
the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.
Fine, if paid or realised, Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand
only) shall be given to PW4 and the remaining Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
2025:KER:42799
Crl.Appeal No.976/2014-C 9
thousand only) shall go to the State Exchequer.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the trial
court for execution of the modified sentence without fail.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/