Kerala High Court
Ponnayyan vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2026
CNR : KLHC010238102007
2026:KER:54083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4152 OF 2007
THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2007 IN CRL.A NO.719 OF 2005 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-III)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2005 IN CC NO.129 OF 2000 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
PONNAYYAN
S/O. NESAN
PULYANVILAKATHU VEEDU, THRIPPALAVOOR, TATHIYOOR DESOM,
PERUNKADAVILA VILLAGE.
SRI.ANAND P.S., AMICUS CURIAE
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SUFIYAN.K.P.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.NO.4197/2007, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING.
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
2
2026:KER:54083
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 4197 OF 2007
THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2007 IN CRL.A NO.719 OF 2005 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT-III)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2005 IN CC NO.129 OF 2000 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,NEYYATTINKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
PALAYYAN @ SANKUNNI
S/O DEVADASAN NADAR, PINNAKKODE MELEPUTHEN VEEDU,
THRIPPALAVOOR, THATHIYOOR DESOM, PERUMKADAVILA
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
SRI.ANAND P.S., AMICUS CURIAE
BY ADV.SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.TANYA JOY
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10.07.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.REV.PET.4152/2007, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
3
2026:KER:54083
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2026
These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed against the revision petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 341 r/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘) by the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Neyyattinkara, as per the judgment
dated 28.09.2005 in C.C.No.129/2000 which was confirmed in
appeal as per judgment dated 04.06.2007 in Criminal Appeal
No.719/2005 by the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court-
III) Thiruvananthapuram. Out of the said petition, Crl.R.P. No.
4152/2007 is filed by the 1st accused, and Crl.R.P. No.
4197/2007 is by the 2nd accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that due to a previous
animosity, on 15.08.1998 at about 9:00 a.m., at Thrippalavoor-
Kaithakuzhi Panchayath road at Pinakkod in Perunkadavila
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
4
2026:KER:54083
Village, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, in furtherance of their
common intention, wrongfully restrained PW1. The accused No.1
struck on the head, right cheek and right knee of PW1 with a
cudgel, and accused No. 2 struck on the head of PW1 with a
sword. Moreover, the 1st accused further took away
Rs.2,181.50/- from the pocket of PW1. Thus the accused are
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under
sections 324, 379 and 341 r/w 34 of the IPC.
3. During trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to
PW12 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6. The
contradictions in the 161 statements of the prosecution
witnesses were marked as Exts.D1 to D4.
4. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned
Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offences punishable
under Sections 341 and 324 r/w 34 of the IPC. The accused
were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
one year under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 341 of the IPC. In default of
payment of the fine, the accused were sentenced to undergo
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
5
2026:KER:54083
imprisonment for a period of one month.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred Criminal
Appeal No.719/2005 before the Additional Sessions Court (Fast
Track Court-III), Thiruvananthapuram. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge, without altering the finding, modified the
sentence passed by the trial court. For the offence punishable
under Section 324 of the IPC, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months each. For
the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, the
accused were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default
of the payment of the fine, the accused were sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 15 days each. Aggrieved by the
same, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the present
Criminal Revision Petitions.
6. I heard Sri. Anand P. S., the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri.
Soofiyan, the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the
available records.
7. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the evidence
itself established that several disputes existed between the
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
6
2026:KER:54083
accused and the injured (PW1) and a chance of false implication
cannot be ruled out in this case. It was further submitted that
the conviction under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained as the
evidence is insufficient to establish the use of any dangerous
weapon. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the non-
recovery of the weapon allegedly is fatal to the prosecution, and
the ingredients of Section 324 IPC are not attracted. The
learned Amicus Curiae further urged that the delay of one day in
reporting the matter to the police creates a serious dent in the
prosecution case.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that
the evidence of PW1, the injured witness, is sufficiently
corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the evidence
of PW2, PW3 and PW4, the occurrence witnesses. Hence, it was
submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned
judgment of the trial court, which stands confirmed in the
appeal.
9. Before delving into the question whether any
interference is required in the concurrent findings, it is to be
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
7
2026:KER:54083
borne in mind that a court exercising revisional jurisdiction will
interfere with orders or judgments of the trial court or the
appellate court only if those orders and judgments are suffering
from incorrectness, illegality, or impropriety. Unless the
judgment passed by the learned magistrate or by the appellate
court is perverse or the view taken by the court is unreasonable,
or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, or there
is palpable misreading of records, the revisional court is not
justified in interfering with the judgment. The revisional court
cannot act like an Appellate Court.
10. In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri [AIR 1999 SC 981], the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held thus:
“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
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC0102381020078
2026:KER:54083
of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a
second Appellate Jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it
would not be appropriate for the High Court to
reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same when the evidence has
already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well
as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring
feature is brought to the notice of the High Court
which would otherwise tantamount to gross
miscarriage of justice.”
11. This is a case in which PW1 was allegedly attacked
with dangerous weapons in broad daylight on 15.08.1998 on a
Panchayath road at Pinakkode. In order to bring home the guilt
of the accused, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of
PW1, who is none other than the injured in this case. On
examination before the court, PW1 vividly narrated the entire
incident without any serious omissions or contradictions. He
categorically deposed that he was attacked by the 1st accused
with a cudgel and by the 2nd accused with a sword. The trial
court as well as the appellate court had already undertaken a
meticulous analysis of the evidence of PW1 and found his
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
9
2026:KER:54083
testimony to be wholly reliable.
12. Moreover, PW1, being an injured witness, occupies a
special status in law. By a catena of judicial pronouncements, it
is well settled that the testimony of an injured witness carries
an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of occurrence
and, ordinarily, such a witness would not falsely implicate an
innocent person, particularly as it would afford an opportunity to
the real assailant to escape. Therefore, convincing materials are
required to disbelieve the evidence of an injured witness.
Further, the evidence of PW1 that he sustained injuries in the
incident stands well established by the medical evidence
adduced in the case. There is ample evidence to show that
immediately after the incident, PW1 sought medical treatment
at the Taluk Hospital, Neyyattinkara. When the doctor, who
clinically examined PW1 immediately after the incident and
issued the wound certificate, was examined as PW8, he deposed
that on 15.08.1998 at 9.15 a.m., he examined PW1 and noted
the following injuries:
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
10
2026:KER:54083
1. Lacerated injury right paretal area 6x1x.5 c.m.
2. Lacerated injury left fronto-paretal area 5x1x.5 c.m.
3. Lacerated injury 2x.5.x.5 c.m over the left eyebrow
4. Haematoma over the left frontal area.
5. Contusion both infra orbital area.
6. Abrasion over chest, both knees.
13. A conjoint reading of the evidence of the doctor and
the wound certificate issued by him clearly reveals that
immediately after the incident, the injured sought medical aid
from the said hospital. Therefore, I am of the considered view
that the evidence of PW1 that he had sustained injuries in the
incident stands well corroborated by the medical evidence
adduced in this case.
14. Although the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that
there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR in this case, it is to
be noted that there is no inflexible rule that delay in lodging the
FIR in every case is fatal to the prosecution. Whether such delay
is fatal to the prosecution is a matter of fact depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. However, if there is
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
11
2026:KER:54083
inordinate delay, the chances of exaggerations, embellishments
and improvements cannot be ruled out, and in such
circumstances, the court must act with care and circumspection
while analysing the evidence adduced in a case. However, in the
case at hand, there is only a delay of one day in lodging the
FIR. It is equally important to note that immediately after the
incident, PW1 had sought medical aid from a hospital without
any delay, and hence his appearance before the doctor
immediately after the incident with injuries will certainly make
the said delay in lodging the FIR inconsequential.
15. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus
Curiae, the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the
offence were neither recovered nor produced before the court.
In order to attract an offence under Section 324 IPC, the
necessary ingredient is the infliction of hurt by using a
dangerous weapon. Therefore, the recovery and production of
the weapon of offence would certainly help the prosecution to a
large extent in establishing the use of the weapon by the
accused.
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
12
2026:KER:54083
16. The recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine
qua non for sustaining a conviction under Section 324 of the
IPC. Non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially when there
exists strong and reliable eyewitness testimony. When the
ocular evidence is duly corroborated by medical evidence, the
non-recovery of the weapon becomes inconsequential. In
Lakhan Sao v. State of Bihar [2000 (9) SCC 82], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that mere non-recovery of the weapon does
not falsify the prosecution case where there is ample
unimpeachable ocular evidence. A similar view has been taken
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of cases. [see
Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas., (2013) 12
SC 796; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2015) 11
SCC 69; Rakesh and another v. State of U.P., (2021) 7
SCC 188; State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly
alias Manikandan, 2022 SCC Online SC 1424.]
17. However, there is no evidence to establish that PW1,
the injured witness, sustained any incised wound. This aspect
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
13
2026:KER:54083
assumes considerable significance, particularly in light of PW1’s
specific case that the second accused assaulted him thrice with
a sword. Although the other occurrence witnesses have
consistently deposed that the second accused attacked PW1
with a sword, their testimony has been seriously impeached
during cross-examination on the ground that out of the said
witnesses, one is an accused in a murder case and another one
also has criminal antecedents, and the said witnesses are
relatives and friends of PW1.
18. It is well settled that mere relationship or friendship
with the victim is not, by itself, a valid ground to discard the
testimony of a witness if it is otherwise cogent, reliable, and
inspires confidence. Likewise, bad character of a witness or his
criminal antecedents are not a reason to discard the evidence of
such witnesses if their testimonies are convincing and reliable.
Nevertheless, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the evidence of PW1 and the supporting occurrence
witnesses must be evaluated in the backdrop of other material
deficiencies in the prosecution case. Significantly, despite the
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
14
2026:KER:54083
prosecution allegation that the assault was carried out using a
sword and a cudgel, the said weapons of offence was not
recovered during the investigation, and no satisfactory
explanation has been offered by the prosecution for such non-
recovery. This omission assumes importance, particularly when
the prosecution seeks to establish the use of a dangerous
weapon.
19. Furthermore, the medical evidence does not disclose
the presence of any incised injury corresponding to the alleged
sword attack. The absence of such medical corroboration,
coupled with the non-recovery of the alleged weapon, creates a
reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version that a
dangerous weapon was used in the commission of the offence.
20. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the essential ingredients necessary to attract
the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the conviction under
the said provision cannot be sustained.
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
15
2026:KER:54083
21. However, the testimony of PW1, insofar as it relates to
the assault resulting in injuries, receives adequate corroboration
from the medical evidence on record. The evidence, therefore,
sufficiently establishes that both the accused voluntarily caused
hurt to PW1 in furtherance of their common intention.
Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 323 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Similarly, the finding of the trial court, as
affirmed by the appellate court, that the accused wrongfully
restrained PW1 and thereby committed the offence punishable
under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is supported by the
evidence on record and warrants no interference.
22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed
in part. The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code is set aside. However, both the accused are found guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code and convicted thereunder. For the
offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, each of the
Crl.R.P.NOs. 4152 & 4197 of 2007 CNR : KLHC010238102007
16
2026:KER:54083
accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of
the Court and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- each. In default of
payment of the fine, each of them shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of seven days. The conviction of the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC, and
the sentence imposed by the appellate court are affirmed.
Subject to the above modification in the conviction and
sentence, the Criminal Revision Petitions stand allowed in part.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
MJL
