IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 171 of 2000() --------------------------------------------- CRA.468/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE CC.901/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOYILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------- PATTARACHATTATHIL BABU S/O. GOPALAN MOODADI AMSOM MUCHUKUNNU DESOM KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. KAMAPPU. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 171 of 2000 ORDER ON CR.M.P.966/2000 DISMISSED 14.2.2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. BKN // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, J = = = ======== = = = = = Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R The petitioner herein challenges the judgment of the lower appellate court as well as the trial court in which he had been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case is that on 17.4.95 at about 4.30 P.M., the petitioner had caused hurt to the de facto complainant/PW1 with dangerous weapon, M.O. 1. After the incident, PW1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Koyilandy at 5.45 P.M., wherein he was treated. On 17.4.95, on the basis of the statement given by him at 6.30 P.M., crime No. 224/94 was registered in the Koyilandy Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. After the investigation, a final report was filed in the trial court namely, Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Koyilandy, wherein cognizance was taken and instituted C.C. No. 901/95. Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 2 3. During the trial, PWs 1 to 9 were examined , Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the prosecution and M.O.1 is marked as material object. No evidence was adduced from the side of defence. After the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He took a stand of total denial. The trial court, by judgment dated 20.11.98 in C.C.No.901/95, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and it was further ordered that out of the fine, an amount of Rs. 3000/- will be given to the injured by way of compensation. Challenging the above order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/accused had preferred Crl. Appeal No. 468/98 before the IInd Addl. Sessions Court, Kozhikode. By judgment dated 13.12.99, the above appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. This criminal revision petition is filed challenging the above order of conviction and sentence concurrently passed by the lower courts. Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, and also the learned public prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the evidences and also the documents available on record. According to him, PW1 is not at all a reliable witness and his evidence cannot be accepted for convicting the petitioner. I have gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. On the basis of the endorsement contained in Ext.P3 wound certificate, the learned counsel submitted that PW1, who is the de facto complainant and the injured has no idea as to who is the aggressor and nothing mentioned in Ext.P3 wound certificate. It is stated as follows: PW1 has no case that on the basis of the blow, he was unconscious. On the other hand, in his deposition he had stated in positive that though he had received a blow, and had fallen but not unconscious. In Ext.P3 wound certificate also, what stated by the Doctor is that he consumed alcohol and he was under its influence at the time of examination. If, that be the case, non Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 4 mention of the name of the accused assumes importance. It is relevant to note that even though the incident was at 4.30 P.M., and he was admitted in the hospital at 5.40 P.M., the FI statement was recorded only in the evening of next day. In the meantime, the petitioner has got time to pick and choose and to arrange the persons who are accused. Therefore the defence version cannot be rejected. It is also relevant to note that in the first information statement, the names of three persons are mentioned as eye witnesses out of which only Janaki Amma was examined as PW7, who denied prosecution case and turned hostile to the prosecution. The other two persons, whose names though mentioned in the first information statement, were not examined by the prosecution. But, PW2 and PW3 whose names were not mentioned in the first information statement, subsequently were cited as witnesses. De facto complainant who is the injured, is not capable to disclose the true position of the incident. It appears to me that there is an attempt from the side of prosecution to create “a case”. Therefore, the prosecution case itself is under the shadow of doubt especially the prosecution witness could not instill the confidence of the court. Crl.R.P. No. 171 OF 2000 5 Apart from the above aspect, it appears that the incident had taken place during 17.4.95 and now we are in 2008. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond doubt, and consequently the petitioner is entitled to an acquittal. In the result, the judgments of the lower appellate court as well as the trial court are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him and his bail bond, if any, will stand cancelled. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE bkn/-