IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3320 of 2008() ------------------------------ SC.143/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II) ERNAKULAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (CW1) ------------------------------------------------------------ EAPEN GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, VALIYAKUNNATHU HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. GEORGE, S/O.PAILY, OLIKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 4. SHIJI, S/O.KURIAKOSE, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 5. BOSE, S/O.PAPPACHAN, OLIKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 6. BOBY, S/O.PAPPACHAN, OLIKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 7. MATHAI, S/O.PAILY, OLIKKAL HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3320 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of October,2008 ORDER Petitioner is the de facto complainant and the injured in S.C.143/2005 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 2 to 7 are the accused in that case. The case against the accused was that on 26.12.2003 at about 10.00 a.m they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the petitioner due to the previous enmity and armed with deadly weapons trespassed into office room of V.E.G. Structural Company housed in door No.IX/343 of Vengala Panchayath and caught hold of petitioner and pulled him outside the room and slapped his chest caused damage to his spectacles and also inflicted the injury on his head with an iron rod and thereby committed the offence under sections 143,147,148,452,323,324,427 and 308 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was CRRP3320/2008 2 taken to the Government Hospital, Perumbavoor from where PW3 the doctor examined him and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate based on Ext.P1 First Information Statement. Ext.P3 First Information Report was prepared and crime 917/2003 was registered. It was investigated by PW6 who laid the charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor, who committed to the case to the Sessions Court. Another case was also committed to the Sessions Court in respect of the same occurrence where petitioner is the accused and first accused in this case was the injured. Both cases was separately tried one after the other. As per the judgment dated 17.5.2008 learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 Exts.P1 to P5, Exts.D1 to D5 and Mos 1 and 2, acquitted the accused under sub section (1) of Section 235 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision is filed challenging the order of acquittal contending that the order of acquittal was illegal. The other case which was tried separately also ended in acquittal. CRRP3320/2008 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused without properly appreciating the evidence. It was argued that prosecution did not examine CW3 the crucial witness and eventhough there was no material contradictions in the version in Ext.P1 First Information Statement and at the time of evidence the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the case on unsustainable grounds and the order of acquittal is illegal. It was argued that fact that petitioner sustained injury is proved by his evidence as well as the evidence of PW2 and Ext.P2 wound certificate and PW3 the doctor and the scene of occurrence is the office room of the Company of the petitioner and in such circumstance learned Sessions Judge should have found that the case narrated by PW1 and corroborated by PW2 is the truth and should not have acquitted the accused. CRRP3320/2008 4 Learned counsel argued that in the interest of justice, the order of acquittal is to be set aside and the case is to be remanded to learned Additional Sessions Court for fresh disposal after examining all the witnesses. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Though exercising the revisional powers an order of acquittal could be interfered, such interference is warranted only if appreciation of evidence was perverse or there was any flagrant violation of the procedure resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel made available copy of Ext.P2 wound certificate, evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 First Information Statement. On going through the deposition and the first version of the incident by the petitioner as disclosed in Ext.P1, I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the appreciation of evidence was CRRP3320/2008 5 perverse. The version as to what transpired at the scene of occurrence on that crucial day as disclosed in Ext.P1 is different from the version narrated by petitioner in the box. Though learned counsel argued that apart from the weapon used for inflicting the injury, namely whether the case in Ext.P1 that it is with an iron rod kept outside the office room of the petitioner and when examined PW1 the version was that it was taken by the first accused from the vehicle parked outside, there is no material contradiction and therefore prosecution case should not have been disbelieved. As rightly found by the courts below, these are not solitary discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence. The very commencement of the incident and details of the incident as disclosed in Ext.P1 is different from the one disclosed at the time of evidence. On appreciating the entire evidence and going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, it cannot be said that appreciation of evidence was perverse. The view taken by the CRRP3320/2008 6 learned Sessions judge is a possible and reasonable view that could be taken on appreciation of evidence. In such circumstance, no interference is warranted. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006