IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4445 of 2007() ------------------------------ ST.2169/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT RAMANKUTTY NAIR, I.M.PALACE-5 B, NORTH FORT, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. AYYAPPAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, KARIKKATTIL VEED, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SUNIL, S/O AYYAPPAN KAREKKAD VEEDU, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. PRAKASHAN, S/O SIVASANKARA PANICKER, PRIYA NIVAS, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 4. SUNDARAN, S/O SANKARAN NAIR, MALLISSERI VEED, CHERUMUNDASSERI, AMBALAPPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 TO 4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, ALONG WITH THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 4445 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated, this the 18th day of March 2010 ORDER Heard both sides. The de facto complainant examined as P.W.1 in S.T. Case No. 2169 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M., Palakkad is the Revision Petitioner. He challenges the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. The four accused persons who are the respondents herein were prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ottappalam for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The case registered by the police was Crime No. 157 of 2002 . 2. According to the prosecution, on 14-4-2002 at about 5 p.m. the four accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to voluntarily cause hurt to the Crl.R.P. No. 4445 of 2007 -:2:- revision petitioner due to their previous enmity arising out of civil disputes had wrongfully restrained the revision petitioner inside the Muthalappara Temple and A1 had beat him on his back and A3 had twisted his hand and A2 and A4 caused hurt on his back by fisting him and kicking him. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined as P.Ws 1 to 10 of P.W.1 is the revision petitioner who was allegedly injured. P.Ws 2 to 4 are the independent witnesses who had allegedly seen the occurrence. P.W. 5 was the doctor who proved Ext.P2 wound certificate. 5. The learned Magistrate note that P.Ws 2 to 4, the alleged independent occurrence witnesses had turned hostile to the prosecution and that the only evidence was that of P.W.1 whose testimony did not inspire confidence in the court so as to accept the prosecution version. Apart from the fact that the overt acts attributed to the accused by P.W.1 did not get any corroboration in Ext.P2 there Crl.R.P. No. 4445 of 2007 -:3:- was only a contusion on the neck and no other external injury to P.W.1 and going by the earliest version given by P.W .1 to P.W.5 the doctor one person alone had caught hold him by the neck and beat him. But when it came to the first information statement given on the next day P.W.1 was attributing specific overt acts to each of the four accused persons. The order of acquittal has been passed by the learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. This Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said finding. I see no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ P.S. to Judge Crl.R.P. No. 4445 of 2007 -:4:-