IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 485 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.778/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB, S/O.THOMAS, ERUMELY NORTH, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GEORGE PATHROSE, S/O.PATHROSE, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VARUKUNNUBHAGAM, PUTHENCHANTHA, ERUMELY NORTH. 3. KRISHNANKUTTY, PARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA, ERUMELY NORTH. 4. KUMARADAS, S/O.KUNJUKOCHU, THADAYAKUZHY HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA, ERUMELY NORTH. 5. KUNJUMON @ SASI, S/O.KUNJUKOCHU, KADAKUZHY HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA KARA, ERUMELY NORTH. 6. GEORGE, S/O.MATHAI, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA KARA, ERUMELY NORTH. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No. 485 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The acquittal of respondents 2 to 6 in a prosecution initiated at the instance of the revision petitioner is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. There was no representation for respondents 2 to 6. 3. The point for consideration is whether in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction interference is required with the judgment of acquittal. 4. Perused the records. 5. Before discussing the point involved, it is apposite to refer to the limited scope of interference in revision against a judgment of acquittal. It has been held that only when it is a glaring case of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial court that interference in revision is required with a judgment of acquittal. Only in exceptional cases of defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of Crl.R.P. No. 485/01 -:2:- justice, interference by the revisional court is required. 6. PW1, the defacto complainant and PW3, his father, gave evidence regarding the alleged incident. Supporting their version, PW7 gave evidence. According to PW1, almost 16 persons including respondents 2 to 6 took part in the commission of mischief, the 15th man being the President of the local Panchayat and the 16th man being the member of that Panchayt. But, the police on investigation found that part of the allegation to be incorrect. In other words, when PW1 asserted that 16 persons including respondents 2 to 6 committed mischief, the police found that the allegations against all others other than respondents 2 to 6 are not true. A further discrepancy that the learned Magistrate pointed out is that while according to PW1, respondents 2 to 6 and others demolished a portion of the compound wall on the southern side of his paramba, the mahazar for scene of occurrence referred only to the demolition of a portion of the compound wall on the south western corner of the property of PW1. This discrepancy may be insignificant, if the evidences of PWs 1, 3 and 7 were otherwise acceptable. According to respondents 2 to 6, there was a pathway on the side of the Crl.R.P. No. 485/01 -:3:- property of PW1 leading to the nearby harijan colony which was blocked by PW1 and thereafter he filed a civil suit. It is admitted by PW1 also that he had instituted a suit in the civil court concerning the very same property. The existence of a road on the side of the property is referred in the mahazar for scene of occurrence. Thus, it would appear that there was dispute regarding the right of way with PW1 on one side and at least some of the members of the locality on the other side. 7. A bonafide claim of right, even ill-founded is an acceptable defence in a prosecution for offence punishable under Section 427 of the Penal Code. Here, as conceded by PW1also, there was dispute concerning the right of way. According to respondents 2 to 6, PW1 blocked the pathway and filed the complaint. In this situation, the non production of title deed of PW1 concerning the property is a fatal defect. There is no material on record to show that the disputed portion formed part of the property belonging to PW1. The learned Magistrate for reasons stated in the judgment, was not inclined to act upon the testimony of PWs 1, 3 and 7. Even if a different view than the one taken by the learned Magistrate is Crl.R.P. No. 485/01 -:4:- possible, the revisional court cannot reverse the judgment of acquittal to substitute its view to that of the trial court. As such, no interference is required with the judgment and acquittal. The Revision Petition therefore, is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE ttb