IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 705 of 2002(B) ----------------------------- CC.368/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- UNNANKANDY NARAYANAN S/O. THOLAN, AGED 75 YEARS, KOOLI WORKERS, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKALPUZHATHI, NEAR ARAYAMBATH VAYANASHALA, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. KARIMBUNKARA MEENAKSHI W/O. BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, NEAR DINESH BEEDI COMPANY, ARAYAMBETH, KANNUR. 3. KARIMBUNKARA PRAHLADAN, S/O. KARIMBUNKARA MEENAKSHI, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, NEAR DINESH BEEDI COMPANY, ARAYAMBETH, KANNUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.705 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the defacto complainant in a crime registered by Kannur Police alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(2) read with Section 34 IPC. The case of the defacto complainant before the Police was that while he was doing coolie work in the property of Mr.Kunhappu, who was the owner in possession of the said property, the accused had wrongfully trespassed into the property and assaulted him with sickle. After trial, the court below acquitted the accused. 2. I do not deem it necessary to either to refer to the allegations in the complaint or the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The court below had elaborately dealt with the entire evidence and come to the right conclusion. I have also perused the relevant materials on record. 3. Having perused the judgment of acquittal passed by the Crl.R.P.No.705 OF 2002 :: 2 :: trial court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In my view, the learned Magistrate was justified in holding that the accused were entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes