CASE NAME: Damodaran. K v State of Kerala
CASE NUMBER: Crl.R.P.No.212 of 2016
COURT: Kerala High Court
DATE: 02 April 2026
QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FACTS
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, the accused filed a Criminal Revision Petition. The facts are that on 11 May 2009 at around 12 PM, the accused entered into the house of PW1, which was rented by PW1 from the accused himself, without permission, and committed mischief by removing the household articles of PW1 and causing damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to PW1. PW1, upon knowing this, filed an FIR against the accused.
ISSUES
- Whether the accused has committed an offence?
- Whether the Criminal Revision Petition can be entertained even if there is no fault or miscarriage of justice?
- Whether the quantum of punishment given to the accused is justified?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC (Section 438 read with 442 of BNSS) – Calling for records to exercise powers of revision r/w High Court’s powers of revision
- Section 454 of IPC (Section 331(3) of BNS) – Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment
- Section 427 of IPC (Section 324(4)) – Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees
- Section 357(3) of CrPC (Section 395 of BNSS) – Order to pay compensation
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER – ACCUSED
As there is no direct evidence, PW1 and PW2 were not present at the time of the incident. The evidence given by PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW9 is not reliable. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court did not properly appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the sentence imposed is excessive.
RESPONDENT – PROSECUTION
PW1 and PW2 were at their relative’s house. The law was set in motion based on the First Information Statement given by PW1. However, PW3 to PW5 and PW9 gave corroborative evidence that the accused entered into PW1’s house and committed mischief. When PW1 came back to his house, he noticed that the household articles were vandalised.
ANALYSIS
The Court has given a clarification on certain paramount aspects.
- Difference between lawful possession and ownership:
Just because a person is the owner of a property does not mean he has the right to enter it when it is given on rent to another person who is in lawful possession. Even the owner is considered a third party if another person is in lawful possession.
- Trespass:
Criminal Trespass and House Trespass were related to the lawful possession but not about the ownership. The court further emphasised that House Trespass is an unauthorised entry into the room with a criminal intent. - Reduction of punishment:
After looking into the background of the accused, it was clarified that the accused doesn’t have any allegations or proved criminal antecedents. So, the sentence is liable to be reduced in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the Court took a different stand in order to align with “REFORMATIVE THEORY OF PUNISHMENT”. i.e, instead of sentencing him to jail, ordered “till the raising of the court.
- Case law:
In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri [AIR 1999 SC 981], it was held that the jurisdiction is one of Supervisory Jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second Appellate Jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
Since the accused had no criminal antecedents, the Court reduced the punishment. The Criminal Revision Petition was partly allowed. For the offence under Section 454 IPC, the accused shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. For the offence under Section 427 IPC, the accused shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay compensation of ₹15,000 under Section 357(3) CrPC. In default of payment, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
CONCLUSION
The judgment clarifies that a revision petition can be entertained only in cases of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will interfere only when the findings suffer from illegality, impropriety, or perversity. Unless the judgment of the Trial Court or Appellate Court is perverse, unreasonable, or suffers from non-consideration of material evidence, interference in revision is not valid.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: PRANAVI KOLLU
read the judgement copy here
