IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2754 of 2008() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.183/04 OF JFCM, OTTAPALAM REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ R.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMAN AGED 33 YEARS VELLARAMPARA, MANJAKKAL, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. RAJAGOPALAN, S/O. APPUKUTTAN AGED 46 YEARS, PUTHENPURAKKAL VEED PARUTHIPARA, MUNDAMUKA, SHORNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. --------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2754 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. O R D E R The revision petitioner, who was the defacto complainant in Crime No.111/2004 of Shornur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 448,341,323,294(b) and 506 (ii) of I.P.C, challenges the judgment dated 30.6.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitting the accused of the aforesaid offences in C.C.No.183/2004. The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. Except the interested testimony of PWs 1 and 3, there was no evidence worth the name to support the prosecution case. PW2, who is an independent witness of that locality, turned unfriendly to the prosecution. Even though PW1 had a case that he was injured at the instance of the accused, no wound certificate was produced nor any medical evidence was adduced to support the alleged injury. The learned magistrate who had the unique advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing CRL.R.P.NO.2754/2008 . 2 their credibility was not inclined to accept the interested testimony of PWs 1 and 3, which was not supported by any medical evidence. In the absence of any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, this court sitting in revision will be loath to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned magistrate. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. cl CRL.R.P.NO.2754/2008 . 3