IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1903 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- SC.81/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------------- CHARLEY ABRAHAM, AMBALATHARA HOUSE, KALLISERRY PO., CHENGANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED, COMPLAINANT ----------------------- 1. K.V.MATHEW, KOCHUVAZHUVELIL VEEDU, UMAYATTUKARA MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR. 2. SAJU MATHEW, -DO- -DO- 3. ISSAC MATHEW -DO- -DO- 4. SHAJI K.OOMMEN, KUTHIRAVATTATHU VEEDU, UMAYATTUKARA MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE. 5. SANTHOSH @ SREENI, KATTUVELIL VEEDU MAZHUKE MURI, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE. 6. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 1903 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORDER The revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed by Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara in S.C.81 of 1996 by the defacto complainant. Prosecution case was that on the midnight of 30.6.1995, five accused, in furtherance of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object of committing murder of PW1, armed with deadly weapons like metal piece bricks and cudjean stumps, trespassed into the northern side of the house bearing No.265 of Ward No.2 of Thiruvanvandoor Panchayat, where PW1 and his family were residing and attempted to break open the gate and committed mischief by tearing the curtain and pelted stones on the first floor of the building causing damages to the window frame to a tune of Rs.10,000/- and attempted to cause death and thereby committed the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 447, 427 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. PW8, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Chengannur Police Station recorded Ext.P1 F.I Statement of PW1 at 10 am on 1.7.1995 and prepared Ext.P1 CRRP 1903/2008 2 (a) FIR and registered Crime 349 of 1995. PW9, the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He prepared Ext.P2 scene mahazar and recovered Mos 1 to 7 and questioned the witnesses and also seized the tempo trax under Ext.P4 mahazar on the same day at 5.45 pm. After completing the investigation, charge was laid before the Magistrate who committed the same to the Sessions Court. The accused pleaded not guilty. 2. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked five exhibits and identified seven material objects. Learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused under Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision is filed, contending that learned Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and should have believed the evidence of PW1, especially when first accused had sufficient reason to commit the offences because of the action taken by PW1 against him for misuse of the funds of the co-operative society. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of learned counsel is that the learned Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and should have relied on the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, the inmates of the house CRRP 1903/2008 3 and PW4, the independent witness, especially when sufficient reason has been shown for first accused to have enmity with PW1. It is therefore argued that learned Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused. 4. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that appreciation of evidence by learned Sessions Judge is not proper and the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, who are the inmates of the house and PW4, the eye witness should have been believed, learned Sessions Judge has given cogent and sufficient reason for disbelieving their version. Though in a revision it is competent for this court to interfere with an order of acquittal, unless there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on a point of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice, it is not for this court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the order of acquittal. So long as appreciation of evidence by learned Sessions Judge is not perverse, and the view taken by learned Sessions Judge is a possible and reasonable view, that could be taken on the evidence, it is not possible for this court to reappreciate the evidence and substitute the view of this court to that of trial court. On going through the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, I do not find that appreciation of evidence was CRRP 1903/2008 4 perverse. There was no glaring defect in the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no manifest error on any point of law or resultant miscarriage of justice warranting interference. Revision is therefore dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-