IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU TUESDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2007 / 26TH ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 782 of 1999() ----------------------------- CC.120/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ M.P.THOMAS, AGED 47 YEARS S/O THOMAS, MELEMEKKARANGATTU HOUSE KULAKANDATHIL, NILAMBUR AMSAM, ERNAD BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAMBUR REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. VENCHALIL SAMUVAL, S/O ABRAHAM KOLAKANDAM, NILAMBUR 3. VENCHALIL VARGHESE, S/O ABRAHAM KOLAKANDAM, NILAMBUR 4. VENCHALIL ABRAHAM @ THANKACHAN S/O VARGHESE, KOLAKANDAM, NILAMBUR 5. VENCHALIL BABU, S/O VARGHESE KOLAKANDAM, NILAMBUR 6. VENCHALIL JOHN @ JOSE, S/O SAMUVAL KOLAKANDAM, NILAMBUR 7. VINCENT @ MANI, S/O SAMUVAL KOLAKANDAM, NILAMBUR BY ADV. SRI.V.GIRI SRI.P.HARIDAS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.R.UDAYABHANU, J --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.782 of 1999 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2007 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.120/96 in which the accused stands acquitted. The offence alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 506(ii) read with 149 IPC. 2. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the testimony of PWs' 1 to 7, Exts. P1 to P6 and Mos' 1 to 3. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.10.1991 at about 9 a.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and then trespassed into the rubber estate of PW1 while he was collecting latex and brandished weapons and threatened to kill him. Of PWs' 1 to 7 who were examined in support of the prosecution, only PW3 is the alleged eye witness. It was brought out that in between PW3 the occurrence witness and the accused certain criminal cases are pending. Hence the court below rightly noted that he cannot be treated as an impartial witness. So also the defacto complainant is the accused in a CRL.R.P.782/1999 Page numbers similar matter on the allegation that he committed criminal trespass into the house of the accused and threatened to kill him etc. Further, there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint. The explanation furnished was found to be not satisfactory. The version of PW1 that he was afraid to step out of the house appeared incredible in view of the fact that his brothers and parents are residing adjacent to the house of the complainant. There was also discrepancy with respect to the alleged weapons used. It was in the above circumstances that the court below acquitted the accused. I find no interference is called for in the finding of the court below considering the constraints of the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction in a case of acquittal. The revision petition is dismissed. K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE csl CRL.R.P.782/1999 Page numbers K.R.UDAYABHANU, J CRL.R.P.No.616/1999 ORDER 6th July 2007 CRL.R.P.782/1999 Page numbers CRL.R.P.NO.616/1999 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2747/1999 IN CRL.R.P.NO.616/1999 DISMISSED 6.7.2007 SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE