IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2275 of 2010() ------------------------------------ (CC.2558/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/CW1 ------------------------------------------------- G.BIJU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, SREEMANDIRAM, SREENAGAR NO.2, ULIYAKOVILCHERRY, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. PRATHAP SINGH, BRAHMANIZHIKAM HOUSE, VRINDAVAN NAGAR, ULIYAKOVIL CHERRIYIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J --------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2275 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT This revision petition is preferred at the instance of the defacto complainant, challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in a prosecution launched by the police. 2. The prosecution case is that, the accused was the tenant of the shop room in the joint ownership of the defacto complainant and his mother and the accused tried to renovate the same without the permission of the defacto complainant which was questioned and hence the accused was awaiting to get an opportunity to cause hurt to PW1. Accordingly on 06.10.2006 at 3 p.m near the house gate of PW1, accused wrongfully restrained and caught holding by his dress and slapped on his cheek and fisted all over body and uttering obscene words. Based upon the above allegations Crime No.1056/2006 was registered in the Kollam East Police Station and after investigation, a report was filed based upon which cognizance was taken for the Crl.R.P.No.2275/2010 2 offences punishable u/s.341, 323, 294(b) of I.P.C. 3. During the trial, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P5 and Ext.P1(a) were also marked from the side of the prosecution and from the side of the defence DW1 was examined. After considering the materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the prosecution did not succeed in proving the offences punishable u/s.341, 323, 294(b) of I.P.C and accordingly acquitted the accused u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above order of acquittal challenged at the instance of the private party, the defacto complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned judgment does not contain any reason for the conclusion arrived on by the learned Magistrate and there is no elaborate discussion of evidence and appreciation of the same inorder to arrive into such a conclusion. Therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be interfere with. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision Crl.R.P.No.2275/2010 3 petitioner and also perused the judgment of the trial court carefully. 6. After having referred the evidence and materials, while appreciating the evidence, the court has held the discrepancies brought out in evidence could not properly explained by the prosecution. According to the trial court the contradictory evidence rendered by PWs 1, 2 and 5 were cut the very root of prosecution. It is also made clear in the observation of the learned Magistrate that the medical evidence rendered by PW4 coupled with Ext.P3, invite doubt about prosecution case. 7. Going by the judgment of the court below, especially on the basis of the discussion contained in paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate came into those conclusions and observations on the basis of the materials referred in those paragraphs and on appreciation of the evidence. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record. In the absence of any manifest error Crl.R.P.No.2275/2010 4 and miscarriage of justice this court is not expected to interfere with an order of acquittal while examining the revisional jurisdiction that too at the instance of a private party. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE ss/. //True copy// P.A to Judge