IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 419 of 2006() ----------------------------- CC.620/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, MALAYIL PARAMBIL ANJALI VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. RENJI, S/O.THANKACHAN, MODIYUZHATHIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, NEAR I.T.I., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.419 of 2006 =================== Dated: 02.09.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.516 of 2000 of Chengannur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, challenges the judgment dated 30.06.05 passed by the J.F.C.M-I, Chengannur, acquitting the accused for the aforementioned offences 2. The case of the prosecution was that sometime in the midnight of 24.12.2000, the accused criminally trespassed upon the property of PW1 at Ward No.XI of Chengannur Municipality and cut down two teak trees causing a loss of Rs.2,000/- to PW1. and that the accused has thereby committed the aforementioned offences. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offences, the prosecution was permitted to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution altogether examined 3 witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 3 of whom PW1 is the revision petitioner Crl.R.P.No.419/06 -:2:- herein and got marked 2 documents as Exts. P1 and P2. 4. PW1 admittedly did not see the act of cutting of the trees and therefore he could not connect the accused with the alleged offence. The only other witness examined to prove the occurrence was PW3 who did not inspire the confidence of the trial court. He had also not identified the person who allegedly committed the mischief. His testimony was therefore rejected as not trustworthy by the trial court. 5. The order of acquittal passed by the trial court was after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the conclusions reached by the court below. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 2 nd day of September, 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj