IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1711 OF 2009() ------------------------------------------- CC.188/1997 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- I,OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFECTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- KUTTISANKARA GUPTHAN,S/O.APPU GUPTHAN, AGED 61 YEARS,VALAPPIL THODI HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM POST,OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. PULIMARAM KUTTA GUPTAN,S/O.RAMA GUPTAN, S/O.RAMA GUPTAN,RAMA BHAVAN VEEDU, KADAMPAZHIPPURAM NO.I VILLAGE. 3. INDIRA GUPTAN,W/O.A.P.KUTTA GUPTAN, -DO- -DO- 4. BALADEVA GUPTAN,S/O.SANKARA GUPTAN, ARIYANNUR,KADAMPAZHIPPURAM PANCHAYATH. 5. KUTTA GUPTAN,S/O.KUTTYKRISHNA GUPTAN, ANNARKOTTIL VEEDU,KADAMPAZHIPPURAM. 6. RAJEEV,S/O.A.P.KUTTAN,RAMA BHAVAN VEEDU, KADAMPAZHIPPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1711 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this revision which is not prejudicial to them. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the acquittal of respondent Nos.2 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341 and 323 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on the information given by petitioner/de facto complainant. Case is that on 3.9.1991 at about 6.45 p.m. respondent Nos.2 to 6 formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons on the road in front of the house of petitioner and wrongfully restrained petitioner and voluntarily caused hurt to him. When P.W.2, wife of petitioner came there she was pushed aside. 3. This case was originally closed following the decision in Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1999 (7) SCC 604) and in revision this Court set aside the acquittal. Case was sent back for trial. At that time the stick and stone allegedly seized by the police from the scene of occurrence had been destructed. However evidence of CRL. R.P. No.1711 of 2009 -: 2 :- prosecution was recorded. Petitioner as P.W.1 and his wife as P.W.2 gave evidence regarding the alleged incident. P.W.3 was examined to prove the incident. He refused to support the prosecution. P.W.4 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued Exts.P3 and P5. Evidence is that petitioner suffered tenderness and swelling and pain on joint. P.W.9 registered the case. It came in evidence that in the very same incident respondent No.3 sustained injuries and underwent inpatient treatment in the local primary health centre. Following that, case was registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 341 and 354 of the Code. That case was also investigated by the very same police and that resulted in final report. Exhibits D1 to D3 are certified copies of the first information statement given by respondent No.3, first information report and charge sheet respectively in that case. It has come in evidence that though the primary health centre where respondent No.3 underwent inpatient treatment is near the place of occurrence P.W.s.1 and 2 were treated in the Government Hospital 5 kms. away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.s 1 and 2 took a far away hospital explanation being that they learnt that respondent No.3 is undergoing treatment in the local primary health centre. According to P.W.2, lot of people had CRL. R.P. No.1711 of 2009 -: 3 :- assembled there and witnessed the incident. But no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. P.W.3 is admittedly the domestic servant of the petitioner, who also refused to support the prosecution. It is on a consideration of such evidence that learned magistrate found that it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of petitioner so as to convict respondent Nos.2 to 4. 4. This Court in revision could interfere only when the acquittal has resulted from violation of fundamental principles of law or procedure. On going through the judgment under challenge and hearing counsel I am satisfied that no such situation or circumstance arise in this case. As such acquittal of respondents 2 to 4 does not require interference. Resultantly, revision fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv CRL. R.P. No.1711 of 2009 -: 4 :-