IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.RC.No. 1 of 2011() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRRP.1946/2010 CC.NO. 78/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PARTIES ---------------- 1. SRI. P.V.ABRAHAM, VALIYANAKUZHIYIL, MYLAPRA P.O., KUMBAZHA NORTH, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THOMASKUTTY @ GEORGEKUTTY, S/O. THOMAS, THENGIDAYIL VEEDU, KUMBAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. BY ADV.SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. CR.NO.1116/2006. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL RIVISION CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. R.C. No.1 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 O R D E R This suo motu revision arises from the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta in C.C. No.78 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused of the charges attributed to him. This suo motu revision was registered on the report of learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta pursuant to a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased. I have heard learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Grievance of the father of the deceased is that C.W.1, a witness to the incident and who had given first information based on which the case was registered, along with C.W.2 was present before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21.07.2008 to give evidence but the case was was adjourned to 21.08.2008 on the request of the defence. C.W.1 had informed the Law Officer who was in charge of the case about his need to go abroad. On 27.07.2008, C.W.1 went to Gulf and returned only on 15.09.2009. According to the father of the CRL.R.C. No.1 of 2011 -: 2 :- deceased, in the meantime certain other occurrence witnesses were examined and the case itself was disposed of on 21.07.2009 resulting in acquittal of the accused. Father of the deceased complained that C.W1 who is a material witness was not examined and no attempt was made by the Law Officer to get the presence of C.W.1. The further complaint is that daughter of one Leelamma who was also an injured was not examined (learned counsel for accused submitted that the said Leelamma was examined as a witness). At that time the said witness was studying at Bangalore but she was given up on the information given by her relatives that she was in Germany. 3. Learned counsel submitted that all the relevant witnesses were examined and none of them supported prosecution and hence learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused which does not call for interference since there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment or proceeding of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Learned Sessions Judge pointed out that C.W.1 was present in court on 21.07.2008 but in spite of his informing the Law Officer that he intended to go abroad the case was adjourned to 21.08.2008 and in the meantime C.W1 had to go abroad. It is seen that C.W.1 who is the first informant and a witness to the alleged incident was not examined. The acquittal is rendered without CRL.R.C. No.1 of 2011 -: 3 :- examining a material witness. That affected legality, regularity and propriety of the acquittal. As such the acquittal cannot be sustained and it requires interference. All the witnesses to the occurrence (who are not already examined) are to be examined by the prosecution. Resultantly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta dated 21.07.2009 in C.C. No.78 of 2007 is set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh disposal after examination of all the relevant witnesses (excluding witnesses already examined). THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv