IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 804 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.348/2004 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------------------------------- RAJEEV MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, PUTHUPARAMPIL KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, PRAMADOM MURI AND VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR. JACOB P.ALEX MR. JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. ACHANKUNJU, AGED 54 YEARS, SONY BHAVAN, MALLASSERRY, PRAMADOM MURI AND VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 804 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010. ORDER The de facto complainant in C.C. No. 348 of 2004 on the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta (arising out of Crime No.684 of 2004 of Pathanamthitta Police Station) is the revision petitioner. The 2nd respondent/accused was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: On 03.092004, at about 5.30 p.m., the accused criminally trespassed upon the property of the wife of the de facto complainant comprised in R.S. No. 14/7 and 14/8 lying on the western side of the Poonkavu C.M.S. L.P. School, Kottupullathupadi road and committed mischief by demolishing the southern boundary wall of the property having a length of 32 metres and width of 1 ½ metres from Crl.R.P. No. 804/2010 : 2 : east-west direction after cutting down the standing trees thereon and thereby causing a loss of Rs.10,000/- and also intimidated PW2 (the wife of the de facto complainant) and others by showing a deadly weapon. The accused has thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. On the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 8 of whom PW1 is the revision petitioner/de facto complainant himself. PW2 is his wife and PWs 3 and 5 are alleged to be their workers. The prosecution got marked Exts. P1 to P14. 4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied Crl.R.P. No. 804/2010 : 3 : those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so. 5. The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 19.09.2009 acquitted the accused of all the offences charged against him. Hence, this Revision by the de facto complainant. 6. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed the order of acquittal on various grounds, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge. The conclusion reached by the court below is after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. Admittedly, there were civil suits pending with regard to the property in question. The civil suit filed by the revision petitioner has been dismissed and the same is stated to be pending in appeal. When there was a boundary dispute with regard to the properties in question, it cannot conclusively be said that the accused trespassed upon the property of the revision Crl.R.P. No. 804/2010 : 4 : petitioner or that he cut and removed the trees standing in the property of the revision petitioner. That apart, the court below after a careful appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, was not inclined to accept the case of the prosecution. The conclusion reached by the court below is after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in revision, will be loath to interfere with the said conclusion. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 804/2010 : 5 :