IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 60 of 2001() ---------------------------- CRA.190/1995 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.559/1992 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- T.M. SIDDHIQYE, THAYYIDAYIL AZAD MANZIL, PADINJARAKKARA P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JACOB, S/O. JOHN, VELIYIL HOUSE, IRUMPOOZHIKARA KARA, VADAKKE MURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 2. BHASURAM, PUTHENPURAYIL OF -DO- -DO- (CONVENOR, CHALAKOM BLOCK PADASEKHARAM COMMITTEE). 3. VELAPPAN, KONDENMEL VEEDU, PADINJARAKKARA KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 4. PRAKASAN, S/O. KUNJAN AMBALASSERIL VEEDU, IRUMPOOZHIKARA KARA, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 5. NARAYANAN, S/O. KUNJEN, ITHILEL VEEDU, -DO- -DO- 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM. BY P.P. SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/5/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioner who is the de facto complainant in the prosecution launched against respondents 1 to 5 for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147 and 427 read with Sec.149 IPC. Altogether there are 5 accused persons. The respondents/accused were found guilty and sentenced by the trial Magistrate; whereas, in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, after receiving Exts.D1 and D2 as additional evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused are, at any rate, entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. 2. Proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant. That complaint was referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after completing the Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 2 :- investigation, filed a final report alleging offences punishable only under Secs.143, 147 and 427 read with Sec.149 IPC. Cognizance was taken. The accused entered appearance. They denied the offences alleged against them and thereupon the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. When examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and in the course of cross- examination, the accused denied all allegations raised against them. They took up a contention that there was a dispute between the Chalakam Block Padasekharam Committee and the petitioner herein and the petitioner was raising false and untenable allegations against the accused persons on account such ill-will and malice. No defence evidence was adduced. 3. The trial court came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion that the accused had committed the offences alleged against them. Accordingly, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. Before the appellate court, such verdict was assailed. As stated earlier, the appellate court received Exts.D1 and D2 as additional evidence. The appellate court, thereupon by the impugned judgment, proceeded to concede to the accused the benefit of doubt. They were accordingly acquitted. 4. Admittedly, the accused persons are Convenor, Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 3 :- President etc., of the Padasekharam Committee and the persons acting under them. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are examined as eye witnesses. They are all workers. P.W.5 is the attestor to the scene mahazar – Ext.P3. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. Ext.P1 is the complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Exts.P2, P3 and P4 are the documents relating to the dispute between the Padasekharam Committee and the petitioner and the manner in which that dispute was ultimately terminated. Ext.P5, as stated earlier, is the scene mahazar and Ext.P6 is the FIR registered on the basis of Ext.P1. 5. The crucial question was whether the oral evidence of P.W.1 - complainant and the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 as eye witnesses can be accepted. The learned Sessions Judge took note of the fact that though several allegations are seen raised in Ext.P1 complaint, the Investigator himself had accepted only the allegations under Secs.143, 147 and 427 read with Sec.149 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge looked into the nature of the exaggerated allegations raised in Ext.P1 and proceeded to conclude that cautious and careful approach must be made towards the evidence of P.W.1 and the supporting witnesses. 6. In addition to the allegation of unlawful assembly and Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 4 :- rioting, the only allegation is that of mischief committed under Sec.427 IPC. From the totality of the evidence, it is clearly seen that even the allegation is only that there was a dispute between the Padasekharam Committee and the petitioner about the payment of certain charges referred to as the `Nerma' charges allegedly payable by the petitioner to the Padasekharam Committee. The Padasekharam Committee appears to have raised objections against the harvest and removal of the crop without and before payment of charges. That was the bone of contention and the genesis of the dispute. The conduct of the Padasekharam Committee, its offence bearers and workers raising a claim and insisting that the amounts due must be paid before the crop is removed cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be held to amount to the offence of mischief. That the said dispute is a bona fide one appears to be evident from the admitted stand taken by the revision petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, the only allegation is that there was obstruction against the removal of crop obliging the petitioner and his workers to leave the crop in the field. Thereafter an allegation is raised that the bund was cut and water was admitted to the paddy field leading to destruction of the harvested paddy. It is significant that two out of the four Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 5 :- witnesses – P.Ws.1 to 4, two did not speak of any destruction of the bund or admission of water. It is only the petitioner who speaks of such destruction of the bund and admission of water into the petitioner’s paddy field. Of course, P.W.4, in response to the specific leading question, had nodded that there was such a conduct. But it is significant that all others only said that after about 5 days there was water inside the paddy field which had resulted in damage to the crop. Suffice it to say that the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.4 does not specifically refer to any specific act of destruction of the bund and admission of the water into the paddy filed by any one of the accused. The alleged contumacious act which constitutes the substantive offence of mischief is only that – cutting open of the bund and admission of water into the petitioner's paddy field. On that aspect, there is no satisfactory evidence. 8. The appellate court appears to have looked into Exts.D1 and D2. It is not necessary to advert to that aspect in any greater detail in this order. Even without referring to Exts.D1 and D2, I am of opinion that the conclusion of the court below that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be accepted and that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt does appear to be fair, reasonable, correct and just. Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 6 :- 9. In this context, this Court must remind itself of the nature and quality of its jurisdiction in a revision against acquittal. The presumption of innocence of the accused gets fortified by the subsequent judgment of acquittal and satisfactory and strong reasons must be insisted to over turn the verdict of not guilty and acquittal. I do not find such circumstances in this case. 10. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 7 :- Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 -: 8 :- R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2001 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 ORDER