IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1202 of 2001() ------------------------------ CC.39/1997 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------- A.P.RAJAMMA, D/O.NARAYANA MENON, ETTUTHIKKAL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------------- 1. MATHAI, S/O.JOSEPH, KOTTOOR VEEDU, UDAYAMPEROOR KARA, EAST OF VELIYAMKULAM, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 2. PAUL, S/O.XAVIER, THOTTATHUPARAMBIL VEEDU, UDAYAMPEROOR KARA, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 3. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.KOCHOL, THATTASSERY VEEDU, UDAYAMPEROOR KARA, MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE. 4. JAMESKUTTY, ADVOCATE, ONAMKULATH VEEDU, NALPATHIMALA, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP FOR R1TO4 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1202 OF 2001 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.39/97. Respondents 1 to 4 are the accused therein. On the basis of a First Information Statement given by the revision petitioner, the Sub Inspector of Police, Hill Palace Police Station, registered a case as Crime No.192/95. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against respondents 1 to 4 alleging offence under Sections 143,147,148, 448, 427, 323 and 324 read with 149 IPC. The respondents 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty. Hence, they were sent for trial. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that the prosecution had not succeeded to establish the guilt alleged against them. Consequently, they were acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order of acquittal, this Revision Petition was preferred. Crl.R.P.No.1202/2001 2 2. None appeared for the revision petitioner. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and perused the judgment impugned. In support of the prosecution case, there is oral testimony of the revision petitioner as PW1 and her daughter as PW3. Though the son of the revision petitioner was also cited as a witness, he had not seen the incident. Two neighbours, who were examined as PWs 4 and 5, had turned hostile. It was alleged that the respondents 1 to 4 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the revision petitioner and caused damages to the household articles and inflicted simple injuries. In the evidence it was revealed that the house and the appurtenant land was sold on 5.12.1994 by registered document No.4760/94 of SRO, Thrippunithura. The alleged incident was on 10.12.1195. The trial court found that as on the date of the incident alleged the revision petitioner had no right over the property and the house where respondents 1 to 4 were alleged to have trespassed. Though it was alleged that PW1 and 3 had sustained simple injuries, there was no hospitalization and no supporting medical evidence. PW10, who investigated the case, had given evidence Crl.R.P.No.1202/2001 3 that no household articles were found damaged. It is in the above circumstance, the trial court found in favour of respondents 1 to 4. The trial court also took note of the fact that a civil suit filed by the revision petitioner was withdrawn. 3. In the above circumstance, on an anxious consideration of the evidence adduced, I find that the trial court had correctly disbelieved the prosecution case and rightly acquitted respondents 1 to 4. There is no error, illegality or impropriety in the judgment impugned warranting interference in exercise of the revisional powers. The Revision Petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7