IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 488 of 2001(A) -------------------------------------- C.C. NO.370/1996 OF JFCM 111, PUNALOOR. REVN. PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------------------------- MS.GRACY DANIEL, D/O. DANIEL, PALAVIL VEEDU, THEKKETHERY POST, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THANKAMMA, CHURILYADU PUTHENVEEDU, MARUTHAMANBHAGAM, THEKKETHERY PATAZHI. 3. PAULOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, PALAVILA VEEDU, THEKKETHERY, PATTAZHI VILLAGE. 4. MARIAMMA, AGED 38 YEARS, PALAVILA VEEDU, THEKKETHERY, PATTAZHI VILLAGE. 5. PEETER, AGED 38, CHURILIYADY PUTHENVEEDU, MARUTHAMOMBHAGAM, THEKKETHERY, PATTAZHI. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R2 TO 5 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING : THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 488 of 2001 ----------------------------------- Dated this the12th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Punalur in C.C. No.370/1996 acquitting respondents 2 to 5 under Section 255(1) of the Code Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'the Code') is challenged in this revision at the instance of PW1, the defacto complainant. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Point for consideration is whether the acquittal calls for interference. 4. Perused the records. 5. Respondents 2 to 4 are the mother, brother and sister of the 5th respondent. Case is that revision petitioner and 5th respondent were in love, there was a proposal for their marriage but ultimately, 5th respondent backed out. Relationship of revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 became sour on that account. While so, on 3/09/1995 at about 11.30 A.M. respondents 2 to 5 wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused hurt to the revision petitioner in the CRL.R.P.No. 488 /2001 2 prayer hall near their house. First information regarding that was given by the revision petitioner on 13/12/1995 at about 5.30 A.M. Based on that, Police registered a case against respondents 2 to 5 and submitted final report. To prove the alleged incident, PWs 1 to 6 were examined. Of them, PWs 1 to 4 were cited to prove the incident. PWs 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution. PW1, defacto complainant and PW2, her relative gave evidence. PW6, medical officer examined the revision petitioner (PW1) at Government Hospital, Pattazhi on 11/09/1995 and issued Exhibit P2. Learned magistrate found that there was unexplained delay in giving First Information Report, evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is riddled with material contradictions and therefore, cannot safely be relied. Observing so, respondents 2 to 5 were acquitted. It is contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner that the view taken by the learned magistrate is erroneous in that, Exhibit P1 itself contained explanation for the delay in lodging that statement. Counsel further contended that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 get corroboration from Exhibit P2 and evidence of PW6. According to the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5, it was after proper consideration of the evidence CRL.R.P.No. 488 /2001 3 that trial court acquitted respondents 2 to 5 which does not warrant interference at the hands of the revisional court. 6. It is true that a revision at the instance of defacto complainant against an order of acquittal is entertainable. But it has also been held that for the revisional court to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, it must be shown that gross injustice has resulted from violation of some fundamental principles of law or procedure. It is also the position of law that the revisional court is not required to interfere with an acquittal merely because a different view than the one taken by trial court is also possible. It is true that as in the case of an appeal, revisional court also can review the evidence, but for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether interference with acquittal is called for and bearing in mind that the presumption of innocence in favour of accused has been strengthened and reinforced by the acquittal. 7. PWs 3 and 4 having refused to support, the prosecution is left with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding the alleged incident. It is true that evidence of PW6 and Exhibit P2 would CRL.R.P.No. 488 /2001 4 show that on 11/09/1995 revision petitioner(PW1) had been to the Govt. Hospital, Pattazhi with some injuries, but corroboration that normally would get from the evidence regarding injury is not as such available in this case since the alleged incident was on 3/09/95, PW6 examined the revision petitioner on 11/09/95 and unfortunately, PW6 had not noted the age of injuries in Exhibit P2. 8. So far as the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding alleged incident is concerned, it is admitted by PW2 also that revision petitioner(PW1) is the daughter of her uncle. That alleged incident occurred on 3/09/1995 but Exhibit P1, statement was given only on 13/12/1995. As rightly contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner, there is explanation given by revision petitioner in Exhibit P1 that she was under the impression that the hospital authorities will intimate the matter to the police. Assuming so, that could have happened only on or after 11/09/1995 on which day, revision petitioner was examined by PW6. But then there is no explanation for not giving information to the police from 3/09/1995 till 11/09/1995. Though revision petitioner tried to make it out that she had been to the police CRL.R.P.No. 488 /2001 5 station on 5/09/1995 and given statement, there is no evidence in that line. Thus, the delay from 3/09/1995 to 11/09/1995 is not explained. 9. So far as the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is concerned, there are discrepancies in the evidence which the learned magistrate has referred to. Though the alleged incident occurred inside the prayer hall, going by the version of PWs1 and 2, it would appear that after the start of the incident, latter part of the incident occurred outside the prayer hall. It would also appear from their evidence that there was some dispute regarding offering of prayer in the prayer hall due to which there was no prayer in that hall for about a month and prayer commenced only on the day of the alleged incident.. It appears from the evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the issue on the relevant day was allegedly kicked up by the pastor who wanted the revision petitioner to pull out of the prayer hall, but she refused and following that, the alleged incident occurred. Learned defence counsel pointed out from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that some of their statements in evidence regarding overt acts were not told to the investigation officer. PW2 candidly admitted that there was love lost between revision petitioner CRL.R.P.No. 488 /2001 6 and the 5th accused and the former was enemical towards the latter on account of failure of love affair and the proposal for marriage. It is in the circumstances that learned magistrate observed that placing reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not safe. Sitting in revision, I am unable to say that the view taken by learned magistrate is erroneous so as to call for interference and set aside the acquittal. Even if it is assumed that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 could have been accepted, it is not permissible to upset the finding of not guilty. As such, interference in revision is not warranted. Revision fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm