IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3529 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CC.736/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, AMABALAPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (PW2): ----------------------------------------------- SATHI, W/O.RAJAPPAN, ARUPATHILCHIRA, PARAVOOR, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MRITHUNJAYAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, ARUPATHILCHIRA VEEDU, WARD NO.5, PUNNAPRA NORTH PANCHAYATH. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R1 SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN FOR R2 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3529 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW2 in C.C. 736 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha. Second respondent was the accused. Prosecution case was that on 20.11.2003 at about 10 a.m. second respondent criminally trespassed into the paddy field belonging to PW2 and voluntarily caused hurt by inflicting injury on her left shoulder with a stick and thereby committed offence under section 447 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Based on Ext.P1 F.I. Statement of PW1, Ext.P4 FIR was registered on 22.11.2003 and after investigation, charge was laid. Second respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P5. On the side of the defence two witnesses were examined and two exhibits were marked. Based on the evidence learned Magistrate acquitted second respondent under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of acquittal is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner CRRP 3529/08 2 was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate was not justified in ordering acquittal of the second respondent on flimsy grounds. It was argued that even though prosecution has a specific case that second respondent committed an offence under section 324 of IPC and PW6 the Doctor was examined and Ext.P3 wound certificate was marked, there was no discussion on the commission of the offence under section 324 of IPC and based on the finding that no offence under section 447 of IPC was committed second respondent was acquitted and the order of acquittal is illegal. Learned counsel also argued that evidence of PW2, the injured, was corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and fact that PW2 sustained injuries is proved by the evidence of PW6 and Ext.P3 and the delay of two days in lodging FIR should not have been given undue importance by the learned Magistrate and as the order of acquittal is illegal it is to be set aside. 4. Learned Magistrate elaborately considered the evidence. Though there is no specific finding with regard to the offence under section 324 of IPC, the said case could be accepted only if the version with regard to the offence under section 447 of IPC is acceptable. Learned Magistrate analyzed CRRP 3529/08 3 the evidence in the proper perspective. Revision petitioner when examined as PW2 admitted that the Sub Inspector of police who is the brother of Rajendran is cultivating paddy in the field of PW2. Evidence of PW2 is that immediately after the incident her husband had gone to the police station and informed police and only thereafter proceeded to the hospital. If that be the case there would not have been a delay of two days in lodging the first information statement or registering the case especially when PW2 is connected with the local Sub Inspector. Learned Magistrate elaborately considered the evidence of PW2 on the one hand and evidence of witnesses PW3 and 4. So long as appreciation of evidence was not perverse and the view taken by the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence is a reasonable view that could be taken it is not for this Court in exercising the revisional powers, to interfere with the order of acquittal. On going through the judgment it cannot be said that the view taken by learned Magistrate is not a possible or reasonable view warranting interference in exercise of revisional powers. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-