IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1197 of 2008() ------------------------------ SC.487/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD CRIME NO. 60/2003 of MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- T.V.UDAYARAJ, RAJASREE, PENKARA P.O., MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. SEETHALAKSHMI, W/O.RAMANKUTTY, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, APPAKKAD, THENKARA, MANNARKAD P.O, PALAKKAD. 2. RAVICHANDRAN, @ JAYAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, APPAKKAD, THENKARA, MANNARKAD P.O., PALAKKAD. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD (CRIME NO.60/03) POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1197 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008. ORDER The petitioner who was the de facto complainant in S.C. No. 487 of 2004 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court, (Adhoc-I), Palakkad arising out of Crime No. 60 of 2003 of Mannarkkad Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 34 IPC., challenges the acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad on 04.10.2007. 2. The trial Judge has recorded the order of acquittal after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. On a perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any infirmity in the appreciation of oral evidence in the case. The court below has applied the appropriate yard stick in the evaluation of the oral evidence. In the absence of any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, this Court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the conclusion raised by the trial Judge who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility. I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv