IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU MONDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 579 of 1999() ----------------------------- S.C.NO.66/1995 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.55/1994 OF KAINADY POLICE STATION REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.SURESH, S/O.K.G.KUMARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, PALLATHUSSERY HOUSE, KAINADY P.O., KAVALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN G., S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, MALIYEKKAL VEEDU, CHAKKACHAMPAKKOM MURI, KAVALAM VILLAGE. 2. C.CHELLAPPAN, S/O.CHINNAN, AGED 44, PULIMOOTTIL KURUCHIKARAYIL, KURUCHI VILLAGE, KAINADY MURI, NEELAMPEROOR PANCHAYATH. 3. PRASANNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, CHAMAMKODU VEEDU, EERA THEKKUM MURI, NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE. 4. LENIN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KALARICKAL VEEDU, KAINADY MURI, KAVALAM VILLAGE. 5. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.SOMANATHAN, VAZHAYIL VEEDU, CHAKKACHAMPAKKAM MURI, KAVALAM VILLAGE. 6. P.R.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.RAMAN, PATHINANCHIL VEEDU, KAINADY MURI, KAVALAM VILLAGE. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 579 of 1999() 7. P.C.SUKUMARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, RESIDING - DO- 8. SATHYAPALAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT KONTHAMPARAMBU VEEDU, --DO-- 9. PUSHPANGATHAN, S/O.CHUTHAN, RESIDING AT CHATHAMKARI VEEDU, KAINADY MURI, KAVALAM VILLAGE. 10. SAJI KUMAR, S/O.SANKARAN, NEDUMCHIRA VEEDU, RESIDING --DO-- 11. SHIBU, PANDRANDIL VEEDU, --DO-- 12. C.I. OF POLICE, PULINKUNNU 13. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI C.K.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R NO REPRESENTATION. DISMISSED. SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE 12/11/2007 \\TRUE COPY// K.R.UDAYABHANU, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Crl. R.P.No.579 of 1999-A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O R D E R 12th November, 2007 A.K.BASHEER,J ======================= Crl.R.P..No.579 of 1999 ========================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of PW1 in S.C.No.66/1995 on the file of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. It is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against respondents 1 to 11/accused. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of acquittal passed by the court below is totally against the evidence on record and that the learned Sessions Judge had not adverted to the material pieces of evidence in the case in their proper perspective. 2. The accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 449, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Police had registered the above case against the accused alleging that they being active workers of communist party (Marxist) had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object of voluntarily causing hurt to CW1 and others and also to commit murder of deceased Kumaran, father Crl.R.P.No.579/1999 2 of the petitioner at about 9.30 p.m. on November 25, 1994. In furtherance of the said common intention and preparation the accused had trespassed into the residence of the deceased armed with deadly weapons like stick, knife etc. At that time deceased Kumaran was sitting in the “visitor's room” of his residence and watching television. Accused No.3 had beaten Kumaran with a stick on his right ear and accused No.4 stabbed him with a knife behind his right ear. On seeing this PW1 had gone to the rescue of his father. At that time accused No.5 beat PW1 on the left side of his head with a stick. Accused No.6 beat CW2 Sarada, wife of deceased Kumaran, on her back and accused No.10 kicked CW3 Beena, wife of PW1, on her naval region. Accused No.7 beat CW4 Omana on her left cheek. Injured Kumaran was taken to the Government hospital, Pulinkunnu, where he was given first aid and later he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. But Kumaran passed away on his way to the hospital at above 12.30. a.m. The prosecution had examined PWs1 to 8 and Exts.P1 to P18 and MO1 to MO5 were marked. Exts. C1 and C2 were also marked as court exhibits. Crl.R.P.No.579/1999 3 3. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful and elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the defence version given by the accused with regard to the alleged incident was more probable. It had come out on record that deceased Kumaran and PWs.1 to 4 were activists of J.S.S. whereas the accused were workers/activists of communist party (Marxist). On the alleged date of incident the Marxist party workers had taken out a procession through the road near the residence of deceased Kumaran in protest against the police firing at Kuthuparamba in which five DYFI workers had died. Deceased Kumaran and his family members were staunch supporters/workers of J.S.S. According to PW1 and other prosecution witnesses, participants of the procession had comeback to the ground near the residence of deceased Kumaran after finishing the procession and a meeting was held there in which about 150 people had participated. Accused No.1 was one of the speakers at the meeting who had strongly attacked the Government and J.S.S party in particular. The meeting place was only about 10 to 15 meters away from the Crl.R.P.No.579/1999 4 residence of deceased Kumaran. Immediately after the meeting was over, accused Nos.1 and 2 and others had barged into the residence of deceased Kumaran after pushing open the front door. The prosecution alleged that the incident in which deceased Kumaran sustained the fatal injuries had occurred inside the house in the presence of the inmates and PWs.1 to 4. However, the defence version was that when the Marxist party activists were returning after attending the meeting they were attacked by deceased Kumaran, PW1 and other activists of J.S.S with deadly weapons in front of the house of Ravikumar. In the group clash which ensued, deceased had sustained some fatal injuries. The learned Sessions Judge while discussing the evidence adduced in the case noticed that the prosecution version that the incident had taken place inside the drawing room of the residence of deceased Kumaran was not probable, since all the furniture like T.V., table, chair, sofa etc. in the room had remained undisturbed and undamaged. It had also come out in evidence that it was a very small room. The prosecution case was that eight accused persons had barged into the room with Crl.R.P.No.579/1999 5 deadly weapons and attacked deceased Kumaran, PW1, CWs.2 and 3 etc. Several material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 were also noticed by the learned judge. It was also noticed that the Investigating Officer had not conducted the investigation in a proper manner. In short the trial court could not persuade itself to accept the prosecution case. The court below took the view that the accused were entitled to get the benefit of doubt since Ext.P1 appeared to be “created “subsequently”. Having regard to the materials available on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal, particularly in exercise of the revisional power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Therefore the revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs