Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court Single Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha, delivered an order on February 27, 2025, in a criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence of the accused. The case involved allegations of an attack with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries, for which the accused had been convicted under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court, after examining the evidence and legal provisions, set aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC while confirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC, with modifications to the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

The prosecution alleged that on April 12, 2012, at around 8 p.m., the accused attacked the complainant (PW1) near his shop at UC College-Thadikadavu Road, Aluva West village. The complainant suffered head injuries and a fractured wrist. The prosecution contended that the motive behind the attack was the accused's enmity towards PW1 for questioning him about the removal of a board fitted by PW1 in front of the accused’s shop.

Also Read: Supreme Court on Consumer Protection Act's Applicability: Business Loans Not Covered Under Consumer Rights

The investigating officer, after completing the inquiry, filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 324, 326, 506(ii), and 308 IPC. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 324 and 326 IPC but acquitted him of the other charges. On appeal, the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was modified. The appellate court sentenced the accused to six months of simple imprisonment under Section 324 IPC and sixteen months of simple imprisonment under Section 326 IPC, along with a fine of ₹25,000, with a default sentence of three months. The fine amount, if recovered, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused approached the High Court in revision, arguing that the evidence had not been properly assessed by the lower courts, that there were contradictions in witness testimony, and that the weapon used was not subjected to chemical analysis. The accused also claimed that the injuries were inflicted in the exercise of the right of private defence.

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, maintained that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court examined the evidence, including medical reports, witness testimony, and legal precedents.

The court referred to the wound certificate (Ext.P3) and the testimony of the doctor (PW5), which confirmed that the complainant had suffered multiple injuries, including a lacerated wound on the head and a fracture of the right ulna. The doctor opined that these injuries could have been caused by an iron rod.

Regarding the credibility of witnesses, the court stated:

"Merely because witnesses belong to the same political party as the victim is not sufficient ground to disbelieve witness testimony, especially when the defence has not succeeded in establishing that they are interested witnesses or were not present at the incident."

The defence contended that there was a power outage at the time of the incident, making it difficult to identify the assailant. However, the court noted that PW1 and other witnesses testified to the presence of inverter-powered lighting from a nearby shop, providing sufficient visibility.

Addressing the argument that the wound certificate did not mention the assailant’s name, the court observed:

"Non-mentioning of the assailant's name in the wound certificate does not undermine the prosecution case, as the primary duty of a doctor is to save life and inform the police, not to ascertain details like the identity of the assailant."

The defence also argued that the iron rod (MO1) was not sent for chemical analysis. Rejecting this contention, the court stated:

"There is no necessity that in all cases the weapon of offence should be sent for chemical analysis. Even if the weapon of offence is not recovered, and if there are other credible evidence which establishes the guilt of the accused, the court can convict the accused."

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused attacked PW1 with an iron rod, causing injuries, including a fracture. Given the evidence on record, the court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC.

The High Court addressed whether the accused could be convicted under both Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Referring to Section 71 IPC, the court noted that when an act constitutes multiple offences, punishment should not be imposed separately unless specifically provided. Since Section 326 IPC is a more severe offence encompassing Section 324 IPC, the court set aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC.

Also Read: "Arbitral Tribunal Has the Final Say on Jurisdiction: Telangana High Court Rejects Civil Suit Challenging Arbitration Under International Agreement"

The sentence for the offence under Section 326 IPC was modified. The accused was sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000. The default sentence for non-payment of the fine was reduced to two months. The court directed that the entire fine amount, if recovered, be paid to the complainant as compensation.

The accused was granted the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for any period of detention already undergone.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner:

• Sri. K.A. Jaleel

• Sri. C.Y. Vinod Kumar

For the Respondent (State of Kerala):

• Sri. Sanal P. Raj, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Bawa Kunju v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:16938
Case Number: Crl.R.P. No. 95 of 2018
Bench: Justice M.B. Snehalatha

[Read/Download order]