IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRL.A.No. 179 of 2002() ----------------------- CC.444/1995 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... APPELLANT(S): COMPLAINANT. -------------------------- K.V.SARSWATHY, W/O.K.GOPALAN, PODIPALLAM, PANAYAL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED. ----------------------- V.KANNAN, RESIDING AT PODIPALLAM, PANAYAL VILLAGE, PAYAYAL, KASARAGOD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPA LATHA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO.179 of 2002 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The crime registered at the instance of the appellant, after investigation by police ended in a refer report. The appellant, the de facto complainant, then filed a private complaint for prosecuting the accused for offences under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. After taking evidence, charge was framed against the accused for the offences referred to above, and they pleaded not guilty. On the side of the complainant PW1 to PW4 were examined and Exhibits P1 and P2 were marked. After appreciating the materials produced, the learned Magistrate concluded that the charge imputed against the accused had not been brought home and, thereupon, a judgment of acquittal was rendered in favour of the accused. Questioning the legality and correctness of the acquit, the de facto complainant has preferred this appeal. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on the evening on 9.4.1995, pursuant to a dispute between the complainant Crl.A.No.179/02 2 and the accused over the ownership and right of enjoyment of a jack tree, situated in the border of the property of the parties, the accused beat the complainant and also her husband with a stick, and both of them sustained injuries. 3. PW1, the complainant, PW2, her husband. PW3, an occurrence witness, was examined in the case. PW4, the doctor was also examined, through whom Exhibit P1 series, wound certificate register and wound certificate of the injured witnesses were proved. 4. I heard learned counsel for the appellant. From the submissions made by the learned counsel, it is noticed that another crime over the very same incident, at the instance of the accused, was also registered by the police. The learned counsel is not able to state what was the culmination in that case. It was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the accused in the present case even at the time of the incident was aged 80 years, as seen from his age recorded in his complaint before the police. His age is shown as 60 years in the complaint moved by the present appellant. Crl.A.No.179/02 3 Furthermore, the facts and circumstances involved in the case would show that the dispute related to right over a jack tree. The ownership and right of enjoyment over that property was necessarily and directly involved in the case. Where the incident arose on account of exercise of right over the property, who among the parties had the better right, and overtact, if any, in exercise of such right was justified, had to be examined. There is no material on those aspects. Further registration of another crime over the very same incident, if that had led to a final report of indictment, demanded the trial of the cases together, one as the main case and other as the counter case. Evidently, that was also not followed. After lapse of nearly 14 years after the incident, at this stage, the interest of justice will no way be advanced if the order of acquittal is set aside and the case is remitted for fresh consideration, especially where the accused is shown to be pretty old. There is no representation for the accused in the present appeal and it cannot be said with certainty whether he is still alive. Taking over all view of the facts and Crl.A.No.179/02 4 circumstances involved, I find that a quietus has to be made of all issues and further prolongation of the proceedings is not called for. The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vgs.