IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 378 of 2009() CC.2017/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA CRIME NO. 128/2000 of KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: GOPALAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 61 YEARS, ARAYANICKAL HOUSE, MANATHOOR P.O., THIRUMADADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. MR. VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED AND STATE: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MURALI, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, THURUTHEL VEEDU, PALAKKUZHA KARA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE. 3. RAJEEVAN, -DO-. 4. RAJU, S/O.ITHAI, NIRAPPUTHOTTIYIL, OLIYAPPURAM KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE. 5. RAVI, -DO-. 6. BABY, S/O.MATHAI, PARAYIL VEEDU, PALAKKUZHA VILLAGE. 7. BENNY, S/O.MATHAI, -DO-. 8. MARKOSE, S/O.MARKOSE, KIZHAEKKEPURAYIL, -DO-. 9. PAULOSE, S/O.MARKOSE, KIZHAKKEPURAYIL, PALAKKUZHA VILLAGE, ADV. MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIGIMON ISSAC FOR R2 TO 9 MR. A.K.JAYAPRAKASH FOR R2 TO 9 MR. BABY THOMAS FOR R2 TO 9 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. ========================= Crl. R.P. No. 378 of 2009 ========================= Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. O R D E R The de facto complainant in crime No. 128 of 2000 of Koothattukulam Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 427 r/w Section 149 IPC and tried as C.C. No. 2017 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 20.11.2007 passed by the said Magistrate. 2. According to the revision petitioner, on 11.06.2000, the 8 accused persons and others had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object to the said assembly, they destroyed 688 arecanut saplings causing a loss of Rs.10,000/- to the revision petitioner. 3. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined to prove the occurrence. PW1 who is the revision petitioner himself, admittedly did not see the occurrence and he had only hearsay knowledge about the occurrence. PW2 did not incriminate any of the accused persons standing in the dock. The same was the position with PW3 also. The other prosecution witnesses could not be procured even after the coercive steps taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused were accordingly acquitted Crl.R.P. No. 378/2009 : 2 : under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C as per the impugned judgment. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the conduct of the accused both before and after the occurrence will indicate that they were the persons who had destroyed the areca saplings. Merely because areca saplings of sizeable number belonging to the petitioner have been destroyed, it does not follow that the accused persons were behind the same, unless there was some material to show their involvement in the act of destruction. Both PWs 2 and 3 have not implicated any of the accused persons. Hence, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in acquitting the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. This Court sitting in revision, will be loath to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 378/2009 : 3 : Crl.R.P. No. 378/2009 : 4 :