IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1566 of 2002() ------------------------------ CC.99/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- YESHODHARAN, KARITITHUNDIYIL, THENPARATHADAM, KARIKULAM BY ADV. SRI.R.VINOD SMT.RAINA M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 AND STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. SOMARAJAN S/O. VASU, KULATHUMKAL, KARIKULAM, RANNY 2. JAYACHANDRAN S/O. VASU, KULATHUMKAL, KARIKULAM, RANNY 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI FOR R1 & R2 SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI FOR R1 & R2 SRI.R.JYOTHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: uj. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.R.P.No. 1566 OF 2002 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of May,2010 ORDER Petitioner the de facto complainant in C.C.99/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ranny filed this revision petition challenging the order of acquittal. Prosecution case is that on 6.12.1998 at 3.30 p.m when petitioner was proceeding to attend the Sakha Yogam meeting of S.N.D.P. Yogam, first accused who was the President and his brother second accused caused grievous hurt to PW1 in furtherance of their common intention and thereby committed the offences under sections 341 and 326 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked four exhibits. On the side of the accused, three witnesses were examined and five exhibits Crl.R.P.1566/2002 2 were marked. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found the accused not guilty and acquitted them. Revision is filed contending that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence and the order of acquittal is illegal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 were heard. 3. Ext.P1 the First Information Statement was lodged on the next day of the incident. The incident was at 3.30 p.m on 6.12.1998. PW5 the doctor examined PW1 and prepared Ext.P3 wound certificate which shows that when PW1 was examined by the doctor at 4.45 p.m on the same day it was disclosed to the doctor that he sustained injury by hitting with a stone at 3.30 p.m The injuries sustained are irregular injury 4 cm.x0.5cm on the upper lip at the inner aspect and contusion on the left side of lower lip 4 cm. in circumference and loose teeth on the upper jaw -two central incisors lower jaw -two lateral and lip central incisors Crl.R.P.1566/2002 3 loose and right central incisors lost. The version in Ext.P1 First Information Statement was given by PW1 himself on the next day. Though Pws.2 and 3 were examined as independent witnesses, the evidence of PW1 discloses that both are related to PW1. But PW2 was not prepared to admit the relationship and in fact denied the relationship which shows that he has no regard for truth. Though PW6 the wife of PW1 was examined to corroborate the evidence of PW1, in Ext.P1 First Information Statement PW1 has no case that PW6 accompanied him when he had gone to attend the meeting of SNDP Yogam on that day. Even from the box PW1 has no case that his wife had accompanied him. He deposed only that after the incident he was taken to the doctor by his wife and another. Though PW6 claimed that she had witnessed the incident, on going through the evidence of PW6, I find that her evidence is not trustworthy. PW6 could have been an eye witness only if she had accompanied PW1. Normally PW1 is not expected to Crl.R.P.1566/2002 4 accompany him when he is going to attend the meeting. Wife had no occasion to be present at the scene. Even PW1 has no case that the wife accompanied with him. In such circumstances evidence of PW6 has to be eshewed. 4. As stated earlier the evidence of PW2 shows that he has no regard to the truth at all. Even if the evidence of PW3 is to be accepted, it contradicts the evidence of PW1. According to PW3, the incident occurred when PW1 and accused and others were standing and PW1 and the first accused were talking. That is not the case of even PW1. Similarly if the evidence of PW3 is to be believed, when PW1 and first petitioner were talking, first accused caught hold of the collar of the shirt of PW1 and then second accused hit him with a stone taken from the ground . That is not the version of PW1. When the entire evidence is appreciated in the proper perspective, the finding of the courts below that the incident is not as claimed by the prosecution is definitely a possible conclusion Crl.R.P.1566/2002 5 that could be arrived. In any case the finding cannot be said to be illegal or irregular warranting interference. Hence when the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a possible, it is not for this court to interfere with the order of acquittal. Revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006