IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1128 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.540/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------- PRATHEESH, KOOTHUMADAM HOUSE, P.O. NENMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MOHANDAS, S/O. VELAYUDHA PANICKER, KOOTHUMADAM, THERVAZHIYAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1 BY P.P.SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1128 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.93/97 of Nemmara Police Station. The police had charge sheeted respondent No.1 herein pursuant to Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court found that the prosecution had “failed to prove the guilt against the accused” and accordingly respondent No.1 was acquitted. The said order of acquittal is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case in a nut shell was that respondent No.1/accused had trespassed into the property of PW1 with a gun and threatened him that he would be killed, if he did not ask his workers to stop the work on the boundary fence. It was further alleged by PW1 that the accused had showered abuses on him. 3. Petitioner was examined as PW1. PWs2 and 3, who were allegedly carrying out the repair on the fence, had more or less supported the version given by PW1. In his deposition, PW1 asserted that the accused had come to the property which Crl.R.P.No.1128 OF 2001 2 belonged to him and his brother in co-ownership at about 12.30 p.m. on May 21, 1997 with a gun in his hand. At that time, Pws2 and 3 and two others were attending to the fence in the property. The accused shouted at PW1 asking him as to who authorised the workers to carry out work in the property. The accused had allegedly used some filthy words while addressing the petitioner. When the workers did not stop their activity, the accused had allegedly pointed his gun at the petitioner. Petitioner felt that the accused was about to shoot. Therefore, he fled the scene along with his workers. 4. It is pertinent to note that the property in question where the alleged incident took place was the subject matter of a partition suit instituted by the accused. It is also not in dispute that the accused is none other than petitioner's uncle (father's brother). It had come out in evidence that the suit preferred by the accused had been dismissed by the trial court, but the accused had preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the accused submitted before me that the appeal had been allowed. Anyhow, the fact remained that there was dispute about ownership and possession of the property. Crl.R.P.No.1128 OF 2001 3 5. In this context, it may also be noticed that PW4, the Village Officer, had deposed before the court that Ext.P2 possession certificate was issued by his predecessor without verifying the records or ascertaining the real position. I have referred to the above aspects only to indicate that there was some dispute with regard to the right of ownership and possession of the property involved in this case. 6. Further under Ext.P1 complaint, petitioner had not mentioned the exact filthy words which were allegedly used by the accused while addressing him after committing trespass. But in deposition PW1 had mentioned certain filthy words which were allegedly used by the accused. 7. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner had lodged Ext.P1 complaint two days after the alleged incident. Petitioner had attempted to explain the delay in filing the complaint by saying that he was totally scared and he could not go to the police station because he was mentally depressed by the acts of the accused. PWs2 and 3 had admittedly given evidence in support of the petitioner in several civil cases pending between the parties. Interestingly, PW2 had deposed that there were three catridges Crl.R.P.No.1128 OF 2001 4 inside the gun carried by the accused. PWs 2 and 3 also did not say anything about the filthy words that were allegedly used by the accused. In short, the evidence of PWs1 to 3 did not in any way help in proving the charge against the accused. As mentioned earlier, a dispute existed between the petitioner and the accused in respect of the property. The evidence of PWs2 and 3 as regards the offence under Section 294(b) and 506 also does not inspire any confidence. 8. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. In my view, the learned Magistrate had considered the entire aspects of the case in the right perspective and acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes