IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.V.K.BALI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2006 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.116 of 1998 --------------------------------- S.C.113/1996 OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:- -------------------------------------------------------- BHARATHI, C/O.UPENDRAN, PUTHIYEDATH, METHALA P.O., KODUNGLALOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SAWTHA, W/O.NEDIYAVEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN, THRIPPEKULAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE. 2. DASAN, S/O.PADIYATH VELAYUDHAN, THRIPPEKULAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE. 3. RAVI, S/O.THOTTUPURATH VELAYUDHAN, THRIPPEKULAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE. 4. ASOKAN, S/O.SOOTHRAPPAI KANAVATHI, ONACHUMAVU DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE. 5. JOSHY, S/O.THRISHNATH AYYAPPAN, THRIPPEKULAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE. 6. RAJU, S/O.KARUPPAMPURAKKAL THUPRAN, THRIPPEKULAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE. 7. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM - CRIME NO.449/94 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS SRI.P.B.ASOKAN SRI.GEO PAUL R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.Bali,C.J. ---------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.116 of 1998 ----------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of December, 2006 ORDER V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral) Respondents 1 to 6 were tried for offences under Section 366A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. After trial, they were acquitted by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda vide order dated 14th August, 1997. Hence this revision against acquittal. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and in particular paragraphs 11 onwards, which contain reasons for acquittal. The learned Sessions Judge discussed the entire evidence and on the basis thereof, came to the correct conclusion. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are such that an order of acquittal can well be recorded. If that be so, no occasion would arise to convert the finding of acquittal into that of conviction. No merits. Dismissed. V.K.Bali Chief Justice vku/-