2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.REV.PET NO. 737 OF 2016 AGAINST THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN IN CRL.A. NO.107 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND IN SC NO.254 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SREEKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, VAYALIL PUTHENVEEDU, NEAR KARIKKAKOM TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. SMT.NEEMA T.V., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -2- P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.Rev.Pet. No.737 of 2016 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 ORDER The revision petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.254/2013 on the file of the 1st Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He faced trial for committing the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 308 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). The trial court found him guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 324 of IPC with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The accused challenged this conviction and sentence by filing Crl.Appeal No.107/2015 and the same was 2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -3- dismissed by the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, on 18.03.2016. It is challenging this judgment, the present revision petition has been filed by the accused. 3. The prosecution case is that on 04.11.2012 at about 07.00 p.m., while the defacto complainant was sleeping in front of Kodiyil Tourist Home, near KSRTC Bus Station, Thiruvananthapuram, the accused abused him and demanded Rs.10/- from him. When the defacto complainant refused to accede to the demand, the accused pushed him down and thereafter, caught hold of his neck and hit him on his head by using a stick. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.G.Sudheer, contended that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and have arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the 2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -4- accused. He argued that the evidence of PW1 is not at all believable and there was no evidence to corroborate his testimony. He further submitted that the prosecution has also not proved the place of occurrence and the evidence of PW1 on this aspect does not support the prosecution case. 5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. She argued that both the trial court and the appellate court have properly appreciated the evidence on record and have arrived at a correct conclusion of guilt against the accused. She submitted that the evidence of PW1, who is the injured witness is accorded special status in law and convincing evidence is required to discredit such witness. She argued that the evidence of PW1 is also corroborated by Ext.P1 FIS and the medical evidence. She further submitted that even though the place of occurrence has been deposed by PW1 as the veranda of 2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -5- Nadar Hotel, there is no substantial challenge made from the side of the accused regarding the same. Hence, she contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding reached by both the courts below. 6. On an appraisal of the materials on record, it is to be seen that PW1 has given a vivid description of the events which took place on the fateful day. His evidence reveals that when he refused the demand of money from the side of the accused, the accused has pushed him down and thereafter, hit him on his head using a stick, repeatedly. The recitals in Ext.P1 FIS, which was lodged immediately after the incident also supports the evidence of PW1 on this aspect. Further, it is to be seen that PW1 has received medical aid immediately after the incident and the evidence of PW4, the doctor and the injuries noted by her in Ext.P3 wound certificate also corroborates his version. 2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -6- 7. As far as the dispute regarding the place of occurrence is concerned, as rightly found by the appellate court, there is no substantial challenge from the side of the accused regarding the evidence tendered by PW1 that the incident has taken place in front of Nadar Hotel, which is admittedly near the KSRTC Bus Stand. 8. Therefore, on an entire evaluation of the evidence on record, I find that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgments passed by the two courts convicting the accused. Hence the challenge raised on merits, fails. 9. Coming to the question of sentence, as stated earlier, the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 324 of IPC. Considering the nature of the offence, its gravity, the injuries suffered by the victim, and 2025:KER:27908 Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 737 of 2016 -7- the manner in which it was committed, I am of the view that the sentence imposed by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court is only just and reasonable and no interference is required, with it. Ergo, I find no merit in this Criminal Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE bpr