IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2547 OF 2009() -------------------------------------------- SC.229/2008 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DE FACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ K.T.RAZIYA, W/O. KAMMUKUTTY AGED 33 YEARS, KUMMALITHAZHATHETHIL, KALLARAMANGALAM, KADAMPUZHA VIA, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. SAIDALAVI S/O. MOOSA, AGED 30 YEARS KALLAN HOUSE, MARAKKARA AMSOM, KALLAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. IRSHAD, S/O. HAMZA, AGE 25 YEARS KALLAN HOUSE, MARAKKARA AMSOM KALLAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP,. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2547 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the charges under Sections 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case is that on 17.11.2005 at midnight on account of enmity towards petitioner/de facto complainant, respondent Nos.1 and 2 set fire to her house damaging it partly and causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to her. Kalpakanchery police registered crime No.367 of 2005, investigated and charge sheeted respondent Nos.1 and 2. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to P17 and M.O.1. Exhibits D1 and D2 are marked on the side of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-III), Manjeri found that the charge is not proved and acquitted respondent Nos.1 and 2 as aforesaid. That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that acquittal is not legal or proper. 2. Petitioner was examined as P.W.1. There was no witness to the alleged incident. Even according to P.W.1 she was at Thiruvananthapuram at the relevant time and getting information about the incident came to her house and gave information regarding CRL. R.P. No.2547 of 2009 -: 2 :- the same. She stated that respondents were enmical towards her. She also stated the reason for such enmity. P.Ws.2 and 3, neighbours were examined by the prosecution to prove that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were found near the house of petitioner while it was on fire. P.Ws.2 and 3 refused to support prosecution and denied that. Exhibits D1 and D2 are marked portions in the previous statement of P.Ws.2 and 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that though Public Prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions and confront P.Ws.2 and 3 with the previous statement nothing fruitful came out. Result is that as to the alleged involvement of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the incident there is no evidence. Acquittal is for that reason. On going through the judgment and hearing learned counsel I find no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the finding entered by the court below in acquitting respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no merit in the revision and it is liable to be dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv