IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 579 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CC.134/2006 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAFEESA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.KODINGATH KUNHALANKUTTY, VELIPRAM AMSOM, KATRINKALLAI DESOM, FAROOQ COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/STATE -------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNHALANKUTTY, S/O.MOOSSA, KUNDILPALLIKKAL, ROTTIPPEDIKA, PALLIKKAL, PUTHOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU R2 SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI FOR R1 SMT.C.G.PREETHA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.579 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 O R D E R -------------- This revision petition is in challenge of the acquittal of respondent No.1 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Respondent No.1 married the petitioner on 29.7.2004 and thereafter they stayed together. It is the case of petitioner that gold ornaments and money given to her at the time of marriage were misappropriated by respondent No.1 and demanding more, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and ultimately she was driven out from the matrimonial home in December, 2005. On 11.3.2006 respondent No.1 came to her paternal home and demanded money and he assaulted her which resulted in her hospitalisation. She gave first information to the police on the basis of which case was registered. Petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1. Petitioner examined P.Ws.2 and 3, her parents, P.W.4, her sister-in-law and P.W.6, her brother. P.W.8 is the Medical officer of Koyas Hospital who proved Ext.P4, wound certificate issued by Dr.Radha Devi, Resident Medical Officer of that hospital. P.Ws.9 and 10 are official witnesses. Learned CRL. R.P. No.579 of 2009 -: 2 :- Magistrate considered the evidence and found that there is no reliable evidence to prove the alleged cruelty and acquitted respondent No.1 as aforesaid. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 have given evidence regarding cruelty which was not taken note of by the learned Magistrate. 4. It is the settled position of law that a revision petition at the instance of a de facto complainant against an order of acquittal can be entertained only when it is a case of glaring injustice resulting from violation of some fundamental principles of law by the trial court. Revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised against the order of acquittal only in exceptional cases of defect of procedure or error of law resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. My endeavour is to find whether any such situation has arisen in this case. 5. Respondent No.1 denied that he subjected the petitioner to cruelty as alleged. Apart from the petitioner, witnesses examined on the side of prosecution are her parents, brother and sister-in-law who of course supported her version. According to respondent No.1, he was assaulted by P.W.3 and one Ahmed Haji and to escape from the case he has been falsely implicated. P.W.6, brother of the petitioner admitted that there was some altercation between respondent No.1 and P.W.3 and in connection with that, there is case and counter CRL. R.P. No.579 of 2009 -: 3 :- case. That version of P.W.6 supports the contention raised by respondent No.1. 6. P.W.3 claimed that he had not seen respondent No.1 assaulting the petitioner on 11.3.2006. It is true, prosecution has examined P.W.8 and proved the wound certificate but that is of no assistance to the petitioner since wound certificate only states that petitioner had compliant of pain all over the body. It is in these circumstances that the learned Magistrate was not inclined to act upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 to hold that respondent No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Sec.498A IPC. That finding rested on a proper appreciation of the evidence. I do not find any glaring injustice or violation of fundamental principles of law committed by the trial court requiring interference in revision. Mere fact that revisional court may have taken a different view of the matter is not by itself sufficient to call for interference. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv