IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1370 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.46/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC.26/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- P.C.VARGHESE, S/O.CHERIAN, PARAMADATHIL HOUSE, ONAKKUR P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS/ACCUSED. -------------------------------- 1. RAJU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MARKOSE,KANNIKULATHIL VEETTIL, ONAKKOORKARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE. 2. MARKOSE, S/O.MATHEW, KANNIKULATHIL VEETTIL, ONAKKOORKARA,ONAKKOOR VILLAGE. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1, R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1370 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 O R D E R This revision is by the defacto complainant in a case taken cognizance on police report regarding the commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. The allegation was that on 10.12.1998, the three persons, including one Laiju, who absconded and accused persons 2 and 3 against whom the case proceeded for trial, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and had voluntarily caused hurt to the revision petitioner, the defacto complainant, who tendered evidence before the court of first instance as PW1. The trial court convicted accused persons 2 and 3. On their appeal, the court of session set aside the conviction and sentence and has acquitted them. This revision is against that order of acquittal. 2. Bearing in mind the parameters of law governing interference with an order of acquittal, that too, in exercise of power under Section 397 Cr.PC, it needs to be noticed that the evidence of PW1 was that he was punched on his nose and as a Crl.RP.1370/04 Page numbers result of that, blood oozed out. The lower appellate court was not impressed to accept the medical evidence which was brought to corroborate that aspect, because, the doctor PW3 had also stated that tenderness of the nose, which has been noticed in the wound certificate, could be well pretended. PWs.2 and 4, the two occurrence witnesses, are the brother-in-law and uncle of PW1 respectively. The lower appellate court has, in detail, adverted to and considered the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 and has concluded that the said evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court of session also doubted the presence of PW4 in the scene of occurrence. On the whole, the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court cannot be treated contradictory to any principle of law, which warrants interference under Section 397 Cr.PC. In the result, the revision petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.21/7.