IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRL.A.No. 153 OF 2004() ----------------------- CC.588/1998 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- BHAGAVATH SINGH.G. S/O. GANGADHARAN, "AISWAYRA, NEDUGOLAM CHERRI, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. N.BABU, S/O. NANU, BLAIZ NIVAS, PANDARATHUTHURA, CHERIYAZHIKKAL, ALAPPADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 2. VIJAYAN S/O. NANU, ARUN NIVAS, VADAKKEVILACHERI, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.S.R.AJITH FOR R1 & 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred by the defacto complainant against the judgment of acquittal in C.C. 588 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Paravoor with leave. The respondents 1 and 2 were prosecuted by the appellant alleging offence under Sections 341, 323 and 294(b) read with 34 I.P.C. with an allegation that on 19.7.1996, respondents 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained the appellant, uttered abusive words and voluntarily caused simple hurt by beating at his face with a briefcase. Though a case was registered by the local police on the basis of the first information statement given by the appellant, it was referred. Alleging that the Station House Officer was influenced by respondents 1 and 2, a protest complaint was filed. Respondents 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. Hence they were sent for trial. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Ext.P1 would certificate was marked. Respondents 1 and 2 took a defence that the appellant, along with his wife, who was examined as PW.2 trespassed into the Railway Station Master's office, CRL.A. 153/2004 2 Paravoor where respondents 1 and 2 were working as Railway Station Master and Booking Clerk and assaulted them with a brief case for which a counter case was registered against the appellant. While the respondent warding off, the corner of the brief case of the appellant struck at his face and sustained minor injury. However, no defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding against the appellant. Consequently, respondents 1 and 2 were acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing which this appeal was preferred. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the records. Going by the impugned judgment, it is seen that respondents 1 and 2 were acquitted on arriving at a finding that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not trustworthy. In arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Magistrate had also taken note that the appellant was facing prosecution in a counter case for trespass and assault on the first respondent. It was also noticed that the injury revealed out by Ext.P1 does not tally with the allegation of assault. The place of occurrence is the office of the respondents 1 and 2. On a re-appraisal I find little reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal because the conclusion arrived by the learned Magistrate on appraisal of evidence cannot be found fault with. The CRL.A. 153/2004 3 learned Magistrate who had occasion to watch the demeanour of PWs 1 and 2 disbelieved them especially in the absence of corroborating evidence. The conclusion arrived is probable. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-