IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2584 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.3/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- JACOB @ CHAKOCHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, PARAYADIYIL HOUSE, THIDANADU, 8TH MILE BHAGAM, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN,AGED 44 YEARS, KALARICKAL (H) PARAYADIYIL COLONY, THIDANADU, 8TH MILE BHAGAM, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. XAVIER @ KUNJAPPAN, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 59 YEARS, PULIYANMAVIL HOUSE, PARAYADIYIL COLONY, THIDANADU, 8TH MILE BHAGAM, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ````````````````` Crl.R.P. No. 2584 of 2008 ````````````````` Dated: 04-08-2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.3 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Erattupetta for offences punishable under Sections 447, 294 (b) and 506(1) read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the order of acquittal dated 24-4-2008 passed by the Magistrate acquitting both the accused persons under Secs. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-11-2006 the two accused persons criminally trespassed upon the eastern yard of the residence of the revision petitioner/P.W1 and uttered obscene words and threatened P.W1. 3. The learned Magistrate who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility was not inclined to accept the prosecution version, particularly in the Crl.R..P. No. 2584 of 2008 -:2:- backdrop of the civil dispute between the parties. Merely because P.W.3 who is one of the prosecution witness mentioned in court about the exact obscene word which was used by the accused, that by itself cannot be a ground for convicting any of the accused persons, particularly, when the revision petitioner when examined before court had not mentioned about the exact word used by the accused persons. He is the person who is primarily aggrieved by the alleged acts of the accused. In the realm of appreciation of evidence, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. This revision which is devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. V.Ramkumar, Judge. ani. Crl.R..P. No. 2584 of 2008 -:3:-