IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 3256 OF 2008() -------------------------------------------- CRP.138/2004 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.211/2000 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - RESPONDENT - ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- BALACHANDREAN, S/O. POKKALAN, KALAYITHALAM, KUNISSERY, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.3256 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Calendar Revision No.138 of 2004. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad in C.C. No.211 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Case is that on 27.1.2000 at about 10.45 a.m. while P.W.1 along with P.W.2 was travelling in the bus petitioner outraged modesty of P.W.1, dishonestly removed the gold chain worth Rs.5,000/- which P.W.1 was wearing and threw away that gold chain to cause disappearance of evidence. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. Exhibits D1 and D2 are marked on the side of petitioner. Learned magistrate was not impressed by the evidence of prosecution and ordered acquittal of petitioner under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,”the Code”). Learned Sessions Judge while examining the calendar statement and judgment thought that acquittal is not legal or proper and registered suo moto revision as C.R. No.138 of 2004. After hearing both sides learned Sessions Judge set aside the acquittal of CRL. R.P. No.3256 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner and remitted the case to the court of learned magistrate for fresh consideration and disposal. Petitioner is aggrieved and challenged the order of learned Sessions Judge in this revision. During the pendency of revision, petitioner and P.W1, it is reported, have settled the dispute outside court and they have filed Crl.M.A. No.7682 of 2009 to compound the offence and Crl. M.A. No.7681 of 2009 seeking permission for the said purpose. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, P.W.1 and Public Prosecutor. 4. So far as charge under Secs.379 and 201 is concerned the allegation is that in the course of incident petitioner dishonestly removed the gold chain which P.W.1 was wearing and later threw away the same to cause disappearance of evidence. It is seen from the impugned order that learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied by the evidence let in by the prosecution in proof of those charges but since that was a matter to be decided by the trial court, set aside the acquittal of petitioner of those offences also and remitted the case. I have gone through the evidence. P.W.1, de facto complainant stated in chief examination that immediately after the incident she found the gold chain she wearing was missing. She thought that in the push and CRL. R.P. No.3256 of 2008 -: 3 :- pull that followed the incident inside the bus, petitioner might have snatched the gold chain. In cross-examination she stated that she could not confirm how she had lost the gold chain. She thinks that petitioner may have snatched the gold chain during the course of incident. P.W.9, Investigation Officer stated that he has not investigated about the possibility of loss of gold chain in any other manner. Evidence of P.W.10 also shows that no investigation was conducted as to how the gold chain was lost. There is no sufficient evidence to show that petitioner committed offence under Sec.379 of the IPC. So much so, charge for that offence as well as offence under Sec.201 of the IPC cannot stand. Therefore there was no necessity to interfere with the acquittal of petitioner for offences under Secs.379 and 201 of the IPC. The judgment of learned Sessions Judge to the extent it related to setting aside the acquittal of petitioner for offences under Secs.379 and 201 of the IPC cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. 5. So far as offence under Sec.354 of the IPC is concerned that offence is compoundable with permission of the court at the instance of the person whose modesty was outraged. Regarding that offence there is composition between petitioner and P.W.1. I have CRL. R.P. No.3256 of 2008 -: 4 :- gone through the application and heard counsel on both sides. I am satisfied that the composition is voluntary. In the circumstances there is no reason why permission should not be granted to compound that offence. Accordingly the applications are allowed to that extent and that will have the effect of acquittal of petitioner of offence under Sec.354 of the IPC. Resultantly, revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge to the extent it concerned offences punishable under Secs.201 and 379 of the IPC is set aside. Petitioner will stand acquitted of those charges as ordered by the learned magistrate. Composition entered between the petitioner and P.W.1 as to the offence under Sec.354 of the IPC is accepted. Composition is recorded and that shall have the effect of acquittal of petitioner of the offence under Sec.354 of the IPC, under Sec.320(8) of the Code. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv