IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 405 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.3948/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- MARIA SALAS, ARAKAL VEETTIL, VADUTHALA PO, KOCHI-23, ERNAKULAMM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. STATE REPRSENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AMBILY, ARAKAL VEETTIL, PUTHUKKALAVATTAM, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE. R1 BY P.P.SRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.405 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 ORDER The defacto complainant in C.C.No.3948/2005 is very much aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the court below under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. by which the accused/respondent were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. 2. The above case was instituted upon a police report in Crime No.13/2004 of Vanitha Police Station, Ernakulam. The allegation is that on 4.11.2004, at about 9.30 a.m., the accused who is a lady hit on the left hand of PW1 the defacto complainant who is also a lady with a bucket and thereby caused injuries to her and also abused PW, near a public tap at Elamakkara. During the course of trial Pws.1 to 8 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P6 and also marked material object MO1. Out of the 8 witnesses for the prosecution, only the defacto complainant supported the prosecution case. It is relevant to note that the witnesses namely PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6 who were cited as occurrence witness, turned hostile to the prosecution. It is also came out in evidence that the sole accused is none other than 2 one of the brother of the defacto complainant namely PW1. 3. The learned Magistrate specifically found that though the alleged incident was on 4.11.2004 between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m , the F.I. Statement was preferred belatedly in the police station that only on 7.11.2004 at about 9.30 p.m. After perusal of evidence of PW1 and versions contained in the First Information Statement, the trial court specifically mentioned the contradictions contained in the prosecution case. With respect to the medical evidence and the oral evidence of PW1, the court below found that the doctor does not support the case of PW1 and there is conflict between the evidence of PW1 and the medical evidence. It is also on record that there are several family disputes between the accused and the PW1 regarding the share of PW1 in her family house. It is also clear that PW1 had filed several complaints against the accused and her husband and thus the court below concluded that PW1 had enmity towards the accused. So the court below was not prepared to accept the evidence given by an interested witness PW1 especially in the absence of any independent evidence to corroborate the above version of PW1. 4. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the 3 case, it can be seen that the trial court, which having the benefit to observe the sole interested and enimical witness, came into a specific conclusion after appreciating the materials and evidence or record that the accused is not guilty. Nothing brought out to take a different stand from that of the trial court. 5. Thus there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge cms