SATHEESAN vs SATE OF KERALA

CNR : KLHC010146972014

2026:KER:84007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ND
MONDAY, THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 / 11TH KARTHIKA,
1948
CRL.A NO. 1208 OF 2014
CRIME NO.11/2013 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014 IN SC NO.422
OF 2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SATHEESAN, AGED 52,
S/O.AYYAPPANKUTTY, THOZHUTHUMGALVEEDU, VILANGU
KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV.SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
SATE OF KERALA
THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJEEV P K
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.10.2026, THE COURT ON 02.11.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 2
CR
JUDGMENT
nd
Dated this the 02 day of November, 2026
The sole accused in S.C.No.422/2013 on the files of the
Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha has preferred this
appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed
against him in the above case dated 20.11.2014. Respondent
herein is the State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records
of the Sessions Court.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC' hereinafter) by the accused,
and the specific allegation is that at about 7.45 p.m. on
03.01.2013, the accused, with intention to do away with the
victim (PW2), caused serious injuries to him. Though PW2

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 3
survived, he sustained very serious injuries including skull
fracture.
4. In this matter, the Sessions Court framed charge
for the aforesaid offences and proceeded with trial. During
trial, PW1 to PW11 were examined, Exts.P1 to P14 as well MO1
to MO4 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No
defence evidence was adduced.
5. After appreciation of evidence, the learned
Sessions Judge found that the appellant/accused committed
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC.
Accordingly, he was convicted for the said offences and
sentenced as under:
“In the result, the accused is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
five years and to pay fine of ₹1,00,000/-(Rupees
one lakh only) for offence under Section 307 IPC.
He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to
pay fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand
only) for offence under Section 326 IPC. In
default of payment of fine amount the accused
shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 4
a period of six months and one month
respectively. If the fine amount is realized, the
same shall be given to P.W.2 as compensation
under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Substantive
sentence shall run concurrently. The accused is
entitled to get set off under section 428 Cr.P.C
for the detention period from 4/1/13 to 26/2/13.”

6. Multifaceted contentions have been raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant/accused to unsustain the
verdict. According to the learned counsel, in this case, no
independent witness examined by the prosecution to prove
the prosecution allegation. According to him, PW2, the
injured, PW1, the wife of PW2, and PW3, a neighbour of PW2
were examined. It is pointed out further that, as regards
recovery of MO1, no independent witness was examined to
prove the same. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant/accused is that prosecution failed to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the
appellant/accused is liable to be acquitted, enlarging benefit
of doubt.

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 5
7. Whereas, it is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that, apart from PW2, the injured and PW1, the
wife of PW2, PW3, the independent witness, who is none
other than the neighbour of PW2 also was examined to prove
the occurrence and the evidence given by PW2 and PW1, in no
way, shaken during cross-examination. Apart from that,
PW8, the Medical Officer who initially attended PW2, and
PW10, the Neurosurgeon who treated PW2, thereafter also
deposed in support of the prosecution case by stating that
PW2 had sustained grievous injuries, including left temporal
scalp wound, left bone depressed fracture, left temporal SDH,
left temporal ICH, left frontal contusion, pheumocephalus
and SAH to corroborate the prosecution case. The learned
Public Prosecutor also submitted that PW4, a witness to
recovery of MO1 chopper, also was examined to prove the
recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(for short, ‘the Evidence Act’ hereinafter).
8. Adverting to the rival contentions, the points arise
for consideration are:

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 6
(i) Whether the Sessions Court is right in holding that
the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC?
( ii) Whether the Sessions Court is justified in finding
that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable
under Section 326 of the IPC?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
9. Here is a case where the prosecution examined
PW2, the injured, PW1, the wife of PW2, PW3, the
independent witness, who is a neighbour of PW2, supported
by the other witnesses including PW8 and PW10, the Medical
Officers, who treated PW2 to prove the guilt of the
appellant/accused. In this case, Ext.P1 FIS was given by PW1,
the wife of the injured (PW2) to PW6, the Assistant Sub
Inspector of police on 04.01.2013, i.e., on the next day of
occurrence and accordingly, Ext.P1(a) FIR was registered.
PW9 investigated the same and filed final report.

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 7
10. Having heard both sides, the prime witness for the
prosecution case is none other than PW2, the injured. PW2
deposed that the accused was his neighbour. The accused
used to utter obscene words against him, after consuming
alcohol. He further deposed that, at about 7.45 p.m. on
3.1.2013, while he was returning to his house through the
canal road in front of the house of the accused, the accused
suddenly appeared before him, holding a chopper in his hand
saying that, “I will finish you”. He caught hold of the right
hand of the accused, and tried to save himself. Despite that
he cried aloud, calling his wife. On hearing his hue and cry,
his wife, daughter and neighbour Sivan arrived at the place of
occurrence. When the accused noticed them, he inflicted an
injury on the left side of PW2's head with the chopper. Soon
PW2 sat on the road. Then, the accused inflicted a cut injury
on his right wrist with the same chopper. He was taken to
Pazhanganad Hospital in a car and was subsequently referred
to Kolenchery Hospital. He sustained fracture on the skull and
underwent inpatient treatment at the hospital. He identified

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 8
the accused in the light available from the electric bulbs fitted
in his house and the house of the accused. He further deposed
that the accused attempted to kill him due to previous enmity,
arising from the mistaken belief that he had killed the dog
owned by the accused. PW2 identified MO1 as the chopper
used by the accused to inflict injuries upon him. He also
identified MO2 shirt and MO3 dhothi (mundu) as the dress
worn by him at the time of occurrence. He identified MO4 as
the dhothi (mundu) worn by the accused at the time of
assault.
11. PW1, the wife of PW2, the victim, deposed that her
husband, a carpenter by profession had been working in a
workshop in Pazhanganad. He used to go to work by bus. The
accused was their neighbour and resided on the opposite side
of the Periyar Valley Canal. The accused was not in good
terms with them following the death of his dog. He used to
utter obscene words against them, alleging that PW2 was
responsible for the death of his dog. At about 7.45 p.m. on
3.1.2013, while she and her daughter were sitting in their

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 9
house, she heard the cry of her husband from the canal bund
road in front of the house of the accused. When she came out
of the house, she noticed the occurrence on the canal road.
She and her daughter went to the place of occurrence, where
she saw the accused inflicting an injury on the left side of
PW2's head with a chopper. The accused again inflicted an
injury on the right wrist of her husband with the chopper.
Their neighbour, Sivan, also reached the place of occurrence
on hearing the hue and cry. Sivan took her husband to
Pazhanganad Hospital in a car. Subsequently, her husband
was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery, where
he underwent inpatient treatment for two weeks. Her
husband sustained fracture on his skull. According to her, she
had witnessed the occurrence in the light available from the
electric bulbs fitted in their house and the house of the
accused. Ext.P1, the First Information Statement furnished by her
to the police by PW1 was tendered in evidence through her.
12. Sivan, an independent witness and a neighbour of
the accused and PW2, the victim was examined

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 10
as PW3. He deposed that, at about 7.30 p.m. on 3.1.2013,
while he was watching a television programme at his house,
he heard the cry of PW1 from the nearby canal bund. He went
to the place of occurrence with a torch and, on reaching there,
saw an altercation between the accused and PW2 on the canal
road. He saw the accused inflicting injury on the head of PW2
with a chopper. While PW2 Kumaran when sat on the road,
the accused again inflicted an injury on his right wrist with
the chopper. PW3 took PW2 to Pazhanganad Hospital in a
car. PW2 was later referred to Medical College Hospital,
Kolenchery. According to PW3, the accused inflicted injuries
on PW2 under the mistaken belief that PW2 had killed the
dog owned by the accused. Ext.P2 scene mahazar also was
tendered in evidence through PW3 as signatory to the same.
13. PW4, the son-in-law of PW2, deposed that the
police recovered a chopper from the hen coop and a dhothi
(mundu) from the house of the accused as per Ext.P3
mahazar. He identified MO1 chopper and MO4 dhothi
(mundu) before the court. He further deposed that MO1 and

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 11
MO4 were produced before the police by the accused. PW4
also produced MO2 shirt and MO3 mundu worn by PW2 at
the time of the incident before the police. He identified his
signature in Ext.P4 mahazar prepared for the recovery of
MO2 and MO3.
14. PW8, the Casualty Medical Officer of Medical
College Hospital, Kolenchery, deposed that, at about 8.35
p.m. on 03.01.2013, he had examined Kumaran (PW2) and
issued Ext.P6 wound certificate after noting the injuries found
on his body. According to PW8, the following injuries were
noted in Ext.P6 wound certificate:
1. Incised wound on the left temporoparietal scalp.
2.Incised wound measuring 3 × 0.5 cm on the ulnar side
of the right forearm.
3.Abrasion on the left shoulder.
PW8 further deposed that all the injuries mentioned in Ext.P6
could be caused by MO1 chopper.
15. The Neurosurgeon attached to Medical College
Hospital, Kolenchery examined as PW10 deposed that he had

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 12
treated PW2 during the period from 03.01.2013 to 14.01.2013.
PW10 identified Ext.P9 as the discharge summary issued by
him. PW10 testified that he had noted the injuries in the
discharge summary of PW2; viz., left temporal scalp
wound, left bone depressed fracture, left temporal
SDH, left temporal ICH, left frontal contusion,
pneumocephalus and SAH . PW10 further deposed that
all the injuries noted in Ext.P9 discharge summary could be
caused by a single assault with MO1 chopper.
16. PW9, the Investigating Officer deposed that,
subsequent to the arrest of the accused at 9.30 p.m. on
4.1.2013, he recorded the confession statement of the accused
and, on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the
accused, while he was in police custody, when he followed the
accused, he had produced MO1 chopper and MO4 dhothi
(mundu) worn by the accused at the time of the incident, as
volunteered by him and the same were recovered by
preparing Ext.P3 mahazar.

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 13
17. The evidence of PW4 disclosed that MO1 was
recovered by the police from the hen coop belonging to the
accused, on the basis of the information furnished by the
accused, as per Ext.P3 mahazar. His evidence further
disclosed that MO4 dhothi (mundu) was recovered from the
house of the accused as per Ext.P3 mahazar. Ext.P3(a) was
the relevant portion of the confession statement furnished by
the accused to PW9.
18. Here, the evidence of PWs 4 and 9, corroborated
by Ext.P3 mahazar, clearly proved that MOs 1 and 4 were
recovered on the basis of the information furnished by the
accused while he was in police custody.
19. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant/accused that no independent
witness was examined to prove the occurrence, it is relevant
to note that PW3, who was examined in this case, is an
independent witness who witnessed the occurrence and is a
neighbour of PW1 and PW2. It is pertinent to note further
that the appellant/accused also is one among the neighbour of

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 14
PW1 and PW2. The assault was in front of the house of the
appellant/accused at 7.45 p.m. on 03.01.2013 while PW2 was
returning to his house through the canal road in front of the
house of the appellant/accused. Thus, if no others were
present at the place of occurrence apart from PW1, PW2 and
PW3, the prosecution could not produce any other witnesses
other than those who actually witnessed the occurrence.
20. In the instant case, there is no materials to show
that any other persons witnessed the occurrence and the
defence also not cited anybody capable of giving independent
evidence apart from that of PW1 to PW3. Therefore, this
contention is bereft of merits and is repelled. Coming to the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that no independent witness was examined
to prove the recovery of MO1 in terms of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, this contention is also found to be without any
basis. The rationale is that, PW4, the son-in-law of PW2
deposed that the police recovered MO1 chopper from the hen
coop and MO4 dhothi (mundu) from the house of the

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 15
appellant/accused, which were produced by the
appellant/accused. He also admitted his signature in Ext.P3
mahazar prepared in connection with the recovery and
identified MO1 and MO4. Thus, on re-appreciation of
evidence, none of the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant/accused found to be acceptable
where the prosecution evidence categorically established the
ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 307
and 326 of the IPC and in such view of the matter, the
conviction imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to
be confirmed.
21. Coming to the sentence, the learned Sessions
Judge imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of five
years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC
apart from imposing ₹1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) as
fine. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Section 326
of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
and a fine of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) were
imposed.

CRL.A.NO.1208 OF 2014 16
22. Having noticed the seriousness of the offences
committed by the appellant/accused and also the nature of
the serious injuries caused, no reduction in sentence also can
be considered.
Hence, this appeal fails and is dismissed by confirming
the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge. Consequently, the order suspending sentence and
granting bail to the appellant/accused stands cancelled and
his bail bond also stands cancelled. The appellant/accused is
directed to surrender before the Sessions Court to undergo
the sentence, forthwith, failing which, the Sessions Court is
directed to execute the sentence, without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
the Sessions Court, for information and compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb