IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 97 OF 2007(B) ----------------------------- CC.453/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- GOPI, S/O.NARAYANAN, KUNNEL VELIVEEDU, WARD NO.XIII (13), THANNEERMUKKOM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.S.AMBIKA DEVI SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. RAJAPPAN (ACCUSED), S/O.RAGHAVAN, KURIAVELI VEEDU, WARD NO.XII(12), KANNANKARA P.O., THANNEERMUKKAM PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R2 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R1 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R1 SRI.MANU V. FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 97 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.453 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala. First respondent is the accused. Revision is filed challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned Magistrate. Prosecution case was that on 1.3.2003 at bout 1030 a.m. PW3 had gone to the shop of the first respondent at Puthanangadi junction and from the shop first respondent caught the tip of the penis of PW3 with his fingers and caused injury and tried to put his penis into the mouth of PW3 and attempted to commit unnatural intercourse and thereby committed the offence under section 511 read with section 377 of Indian Penal Code. When the charge for offence under section 377 read with section 511 of IPC was framed, first respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PW1 the father of PW3 who lodged Ext.P3 F.I. Statement and the brother of PW1 as PW4 and the doctor as PW2 apart from the official witnesses. On the evidence learned Magistrate found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him. It CRRP 97/07 2 is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and learned counsel appearing for first respondent were heard. 3. Unless there is any glaring defect in the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate or a perverse appreciation of evidence, it is not for this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal. So long as the view taken by the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence is a possible and reasonable view, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered. 4. On going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate it is absolutely clear that appreciation of evidence was proper. Even if the evidence is reappreciated, findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate could only be arrived at. Evidence of PW1 shows that after PW3 came to him, complaining mischief on the part of first respondent, along with PW1 revision petitioner proceeded to the shop of first respondent and then along with first respondent went to the doctor and when PW3 was examined by PW2 the doctor, revision petitioner was present. If petitioner attempted to commit a heinous offence as claimed by PWs 1 to 3, it cannot be believed CRRP 97/07 3 that PW1 would either approach first respondent or take first respondent to the doctor along with the victim. The evidence of PW3 establishes that there was a case against PW3 and his friend alleging that they committed theft of coco cola from the shop of the brother of first respondent and after much effort the case as against the friend of PW3 was settled and the case as against PW3 was not settled. When the entire evidence is appreciated in the proper perspective it is absolutely clear that evidence of PWs 1 and 3 cannot be relied. The evidence of PW2 shows that injuries noted in Ext.P2 wound certificate could have been caused even as suggested by the first respondent. There is no merit in the revision. Hence revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-