Injured Witness Testimony Alone Can Form Basis Of Conviction: Kerala High Court

Revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or assume the role of an appellate court unless the lower courts' findings suffer from gross perversity, illegality, or material irregularity. The Kerala High Court reinforced that the testimony of an injured witness carries an inherent guarantee of presence and credibility, which can independently sustain a criminal conviction.

Evaluating a challenge against concurrent findings of guilt under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, a single-judge bench of Justice Jobin Sebastian reaffirmed the circumscribed scope of revisional jurisdiction while granting minor leniency in sentence sentencing.

Court's Rationale On Revisional Scope & Injured Witness Testimony

The High Court underscored that revisional powers under Section 397 and Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are supervisory in nature. Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible merely because another view of the record is plausible.

Citing established precedent in State of Kerala v. Jathavedan Namboodiri, the Court in its reasoning observed: "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 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."

On evaluating the reliance placed on the injured victim's testimony, the Court noted that an injured witness comes with a built-in guarantee of presence at the scene of the crime and rarely lets the actual assailant escape to falsely implicate an innocent person.

Examining the sentence modification, the Court observed that the act was not premeditated and had arisen over a dispute concerning cattle grazing, with no prior criminal records attributable to the accused.

The Court has following directions:

"In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. Without altering the finding of guilt, the sentence imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is modified, and the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount if paid or realised, the same shall be given to PW1 as composition under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Background

The case originated from an incident where the victim was wrongfully restrained and assaulted with a chopper on a pathway leading to a paddy field. The Magistrate Court convicted the accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to four months of simple imprisonment. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court alongside Rs. 10,000 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In revision before the High Court, the accused argued that a counter-case existed, provocation was initiated by the complainant, and the weapon recovery was fabricated. The State contended that eyewitness testimony and medical certificates fully corroborated the occurrence. Finding no material error or perversity in the conviction, the High Court affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the substantive sentence to a fine of Rs. 10,000 payable as compensation to the victim under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.Rev.Pet NO. 463 OF 2020
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:61517
Case Title: Sivadasan v. State of Kerala
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. S. Rajeev, Sri. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, Sri. V. Vinay, Shri. Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Sri. D. Feroze
For the Respondent(s): Smt. Megha K. Xavier, Sr. PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 10622