IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3616 of 2007() ------------------------------ CC.378/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. KOTHA, RESIDENT OF KARIPALAPADI, NEDUMPURA P.O., CHERUTHURUTHI, WADAKKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SIVADASAN, S/O. V.R.C.MENON, KOUSTHUBHAM HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY, THALAPPILLY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAMDE DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.3616 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner, the defacto complainant in C.C. 378 of 2003 filed the revision challenging the order of acquittal passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution case is that on 2.8.2003 while revision petitioner, who was examined as PW1 along with PWs 2 and 3 were doing spade works near the property of the accused, second respondent, the accused came running armed with a pick axe and hurled abuses at revision petitioner and slapped on his cheek and inflicted an injury on his left leg with the pick axe and thereby committed offences under section 323, 324 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. 2. PW1 was examined by PW7, the Doctor, who issued Ext.P5 wound certificate on 2.8.2003 at 11.30 a.m. from the Taluk Hospital, Wadakkanchery. PW1 lodged Ext.P1 F.I. Statement only on 9.8.2003 based on which PW8, the Sub Inspector investigated the case, prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar CRRP3616/2007 2 and after completing investigation, lodged the charge. Second respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses, marked 5 exhibits and identified MO1 the pick axe. On the evidence, learned Magistrate acquitted second respondent holding that prosecution did not establish any of the offences. The order of acquittal is challenged in this revision contending that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence and there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW1 corroborated by PWs 2 and 3. 3. On going through the evidence on record and the finding of the learned Magistrate, it cannot be said that appreciation of evidence was perverse. Though PW1, the injured, was examined and his evidence was supported by PWs 2 and 3, learned Magistrate found that their evidence cannot be relied on. Ext.P5 wound certificate with the evidence of PW7 shows only a small lacerated wound, which could not have been caused by a pick axe as claimed by PW1 and corroborated by PWs 2 and 3. Even though the incident was on 2.8.2003, Ext.P1 F.I.Statement was lodged only on 9.8.2003. The fact that revision petitioner was discharged only on that day is not a CRRP3616/2007 3 sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. When the entire evidence is appreciated in the proper perspective, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is definitely a reasonable and possible view that could be taken on proper appreciation of the evidence. There is no credible or acceptable evidence to prove the offences. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb