IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1969 of 2009 ------------------------------ CC.474/2001 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamanagalam .................... REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ SHIBU JOSEPH, VADAKKEL VEEDU, NJAYAPILLIKARAYIL, KUTTANPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.P.REJINARK RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE: ------------------------------ 1. JAYAPAL, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, KOCHUKIZHAKEDATH HOUSE, ELATHOOR KARA, ELATHOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, THAYYIL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR P.O., PALAI. 3. JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE, KURUPALAKKADU HOUSE, VENGALLOOR, KUMARAMANGALAM, THODUPUZHA. 4. MUHAMMED SHAFI, S/O.PAREETH MUHAMMED, MUKALEL HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM, POTHANICAD. 5. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GEO PAUL FOR R1 & 3 SRI.P.G.SURESHKUMAR FOR R1 & 3 SRI.SANU MATHEW FOR R1 & 3 SRI.C.R.PRAMOD FOR R1 & 3 SRI.M.B.SANDEEP FOR R1 & 3 SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1969 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 02nd day of July 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent Nos.1 to 4 of offences punishable under Sec. 323 and 324 r/w. Sec.34 of the Penal Code. They faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam in C.C.No. 474 of 2001 on the allegation that on 14-01-01 at about 9.30.a.m they voluntarily caused hurt to petitioner. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and proved Exts. P1 to P6. Respondents 1 to 4 examined DWs. 1 and 2 and proved Exts.D1 to D4. Learned magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence let in by the prosecution and acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 4 under Sec 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel contented that evidence let in by the prosecution is sufficient to warrant conviction to respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are forest officials. According Crl.R.P.No.1969 2 to them, petitioner (PW1) is one of the accused O.R.No.1 of 2001 for allegedly trespassing into the forest, poaching elephants and removing its tusks. In connection with O.R.No.1 of 2001, petitioner was taken to custody. 3. Petitioner gave evidence regarding the alleged incident as PW.1. He stated that respondent Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him. He did not say anything about the involvement of respondent No.4. PW.2 is wife of the petitioner and PW.3, their neighbour. They also gave evidence regarding the alleged incident. PW.5 is the Medical Officer who issued PW.3, wound certificate of the petitioner. He stated that the injury can be casued by assault or by falling on rough surface. 4. Respondent No.1 gave evidence as DW.2. He stated that himself and other forest officials tried to take petitioner into custody in connection with O.R.No.1 of 2001 but he ran away from the scene with country gun, stumbled over a stone, and fell down and sustained injuries. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 examined Crl.R.P.No.1969 3 DW1, forest guard who also gave evidence in support of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Exts.D1 to D4 are produced to show that petitioner is involved in O.R.No.1 of 2001. Court below considered the evidence and observed that PWs.1 to 3 are highly interested PW.2 being wife of the petitioner and PW3 being their immediate neighbour. Possibility of petitioner sustaining injury in the circumstances stated by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be ruled out. It is in these circumstances that learned magistrate was not impressed by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and acquitted respondent Nos.1 to 4. 5. A re-appraisal of the evidence is not warranted in a revision from acquittal. Interference in revision is called for only when finding entered by the court below is palpably wrong. If two views are possible and the trial court has taken one view and accordingly acquitted respondent Nos. 1 to 4, revisional court is not justified its view for the view taken by the trial court. As found by learned magistrate, possibility of petitioner sustaining Crl.R.P.No.1969 4 injury as contented by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be ruled out. If that be so, their acquittal is justified and this court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with that acquittal. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/