IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3072 of 2008() ------------------------------ SC.957/2006 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------- 1. SOMARAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SADANANDAN,S.S.BHAVAN, KADAVUR, KOLLAM. 2. GOPI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.NANU, THEGU VILAYIL, PERINADU, KADAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. MOHANAN S/O. VIDYADHARAN KUTTIYIL VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY THRIKKADAVOOR,KOLLAM. 2. AZHAKESHAN S/O. KESAVAN KADAVOOR CHERRY,THRIKKADAVOOR,KOLLAM. 3. BIJU S/O.SIVADASAN, KAYALVARATHU VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY ,THRIKKADAVOOR,KOLLAM. 4. YESUDASAN,S/O.CHORAKANNAN KOODANATTUVILA VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY ,THRIKKADAVOOR,KOLLAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZER FOR R5 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3072 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is filed under section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kollam in SC 957 of 2006 under section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is the injured. Respondents 1 to 4 are the accused. Prosecution case was that on 2.2.2004 at about 11.30 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention, because of previous enmity all the accused armed with deadly weapons, inflicted injuries on PW1 with a sword after blocking the road on the western side of Pratheeksha Club at Kottakkakam and when PW2 tired to intervene, injury was inflicted on PW2 also and the accused thereby committed offences under sections 143, 147, 148 and 308 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined seven witnesses, marked eight exhibits and identified one material object. Learned Sessions Judge on the evidence found that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the injured, are contradictory and inconsistent and there is no evidence to prove that the accused committed any of CRRP 3072/08 2 the offences. They were therefore acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. 2. Case of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2, is that the learned Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and as held by the Apex Court in Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar(AIR 1983 SC 911) evidence of a solitary witness is sufficient for conviction and PWs 1 and 2 the injured gave evidence in support of the prosecution case and Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused and the order of acquittal is illegal and is to be set aside. 3. When a revision is filed against an order of acquittal, unless there is a glaring defect in the procedure followed or manifest error on a point of law and flagrant miscarriage of justice or appreciation of evidence was perverse, it is not for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal. The revisional power is conferred on the superior Court to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment or there was any manifest error or glaring defect in the procedure. 4. The learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. Though PWs 1 and 2 are the injured, CRRP 3072/08 3 there are material contradictions in their evidence. PW1 was examined by PW5 the Doctor. As proved by Ext.P4 wound certificate the case of PW1 at that time was that PW1 was attacked by first accused and party. The statement furnished by PW2 to the Doctor as recorded in Ext.P3 wound certificate is also the same. The learned Sessions Judge on the evidence found that the alleged cause of injury disclosed to the Doctor by PWs 1 and 2 is different from the case spoken to by PWs 1 and 2 in Court. So also when evidence of PW1 was that PW2 reached the scene of occurrence after hearing the cry of PW1 and by that time PW1 had sustained injury, evidence of PW2 is that he had seen the entire acts. It is based on proper appreciation of evidence learned Sessions Judge found that there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The appreciation of evidence was not perverse warranting reappreciation. There was no irregularity or defect in the procedure adopted by learned Sessions Judge. In such circumstances the order of acquittal cannot be interfered. Revision petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-