IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1365 of 2001(B) --------------------------------------- CC.927/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PW1 : ------------------------------- ANTHRAYOSE, PONGUVILA KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 17 AND STATE : ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAGOPAL, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 26, NELLIVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, NELLIMOODU, KOTTUKAL DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. 2. RAMANAN, S/O.RAJU NADAR, AGED 36, KALLUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KURUDANKUZHY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 3. MANYKUTTAN, S/O.RAJU NADAR, AGED 25, KALLUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KURUDANKUZHY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 4. DIVAKARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 39, ONAMKODU MELEVALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHIYANOOR DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 5. KUMARASWAMY, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 46, VSR HOUSE, KURUTHAMKUDY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1365 of 2001(B) 6. AMBILI, S/O.KUNAJAN, AGED 31, THINAVILAKUZHY KUTTANTHURANNA PURAYIDATHIL, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 7. MONYKANDON, S/O.CHELLAN, AGED 30, ONAMKODU ARATHALKKAL VEEDU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 8. CHANDRAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 35, SUCHITHRA BHAVAN, ONAMKODU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 9. ANI, S/O.PONNU NADAR, AGED 24, ONAMKODU ALATHRAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 10. MANOHARAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN NADAR, AGED 31, MAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 11. GOPI, S/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 54, MAVILA VEEDU, AVANAKUZHY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 12. RAJENDRAN, S/O.VASU MESTHIRI, AGED 28, ONAMKODU ALATHARAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 13. SATHEESAN, S/O. SAMUEL, AGED 20, THINAVILAKUZHY VEEDU, AVANAKUZHY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 14. MOHANAN, S/O.HARRES, AGED 37, PONGUVILA VEEDU, VENPAKAL, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 15. BHASKARAN, S/O.BERNABAS, AGED 38, KALLUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 16. BABU, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 38, MAVILA VEEDU, AVANAKUZHY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1365 of 2001(B) 17. BABU, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 38, THINAVILAKUZHY CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, AVANAKUZHY, VENPAKAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE. 18. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTIONS. ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD - R1TO 12 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. - R1TO 12 SRI.MANU V.- DO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL. R. P.No.1365 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Heard. 2. Alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, revision petitioner preferred a complaint to police. Case was that on 17/11/1996 at about 1 P.M. respondents 1 to 17 trespassed into the 20 cents of land belonging to the revision petitioner comprised in survey no.288/5A, formed unlawful assembly, committed rioting armed with deadly weapons and committed mischief by cutting down the trees and demolishing portion of bath room and latrine. Respondents 1 to 17 faced trial in the court below. Learned magistrate as per judgment dated 25/07/2001 acquitted respondents 1 to 17 under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is aggrieved and has come up in revision. 3. Counsel for revision petitioner contended that acquittal of respondents 1 to 17 is not legal or proper in that, sufficient evidence was let in by PWs 1 to 3 regarding the act of respondents 1 to 17. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that Exhibits P3 to P5 supported the case CRL. R. P.No.1365 / 2001 2 of revision petitioner. 4. Revision petitioner, the defacto complainant gave evidence as PW1 and spoke to the alleged incident. PWs 2 and 3 supported him. According to PWs 2 and 3, respondents 1 to 17 trespassed into land belonging to revision petitioner and committed mischief. PW4 investigated the case. Learned magistrate observed that evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is not reliable and that revision petitioner did not produce any document to support his claim of possession of the disputed land. Learned magistrate also referred to certain contradiction in the evidence of revision petitioner. 5. It is seen that none of the documents of title on which revision petitioner claimed title and possession of the disputed land were produced in the court below. Instead, revision petitioner rest contended with Exhibits P3 and P4. Exhibit P4 is certified copy of decree in O.S. No. 895/1996 filed by the revision petitioner against five among respondents 1 to 17. Exhibit P3 is copy of order dated 13/02/1997 in I.A. No.5299/1996 in O.S. No.895/1996. Exhibit P3 states that since parties were not represented, the interim order was made absolute. 6. The decision of the civil court is not binding on criminal court though, it is relevant under circumstances stated in Section 43 of the Indian CRL. R. P.No.1365 / 2001 3 Evidence Act. Therefore, from Exhibits P3 and P4 alone it is not possible to find that revision petitioner was in possession of the disputed land during the relevant time. It is the case of respondents 1 to 17 that there was a panchayat road along the side of disputed property which they were using. Revision petitioner, when examined as PW1 denied that suggestion of respondents 1 to 17 but his previous statement proved through PW4 is to the effect that respondents 1 to 17 were attempting to widen the existing way. PW4 also stated that there is a way having width of four feet but he has not measured the disputed land or the said way. So long as, it is not shown that mischief was committed in the land belonging to or in the possession of the revision petitioner, no offence is made out. Exhibits P3 and P4 show that the said orders were passed much after the alleged incident. So far as PWs 2 and 3 are concerned, it has come out that they hailed from very distant places. According to PW2, he had been near the place of occurrence to attend a burial in the nearby house. Learned magistrate was not inclined to place reliance on the version of PWs2 and 3. Moreover, it is seen from their testimony that they only made an omnibus statement that the accused were seen trespassing into the property of revision petitioner and committing mischief. They did not properly identify the trespassers. CRL. R. P.No.1365 / 2001 4 Interference with the judgment of acquittal is called for only when gross injustice has resulted from the violation of some fundamental principle of law or procedure. Even if a different view is possible, revisional court will not be justified in substituting the view of the trial court with its own view. I am not inclined to think that view taken by learned magistrate is absolutely not warranted or, that any gross injustice has resulted from any violation of fundamental principle of law or procedure. As such not interference is required. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm