IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3305 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ CC.721/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/ IST INFORMANT --------------------------- VALSAMMA, W/O. JOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, FOUR CENT COLONY, ADIVARAM, POONJAR NADUBHAGAM VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT/ ACCUSED -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHENPURACKEL VEEDU, 4 CENT COLONEY, DIVARAM, POONJAR NADU BHAGOM VILLAGE. 3. ACHANKUNJU, S/O. VARGHESE, PULLUVELIL VEEDU, 4 CENT COLONEY, ADIVARAM, POONJAR NADU BHAGOM VILLAGE. 4. JOY S/O. DEVASIA, THEKKEDATHU VEEDU, MATTAKKADU BHAGOM, PANACHIPPARA KARAYIL, POONJAR NADU BHAGOM VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3305 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta in C.C.721 of 2006. Petitioner is the defacto complainant. His case is that on 16.10.2006 at 7.30 pm, three accused persons trespassed into the courtyard of her residential building and first respondent hit on the front door of the house with a log-block and respondents 2 and 3 kicked on the door after uttering obscene words and all of them caused damages to the wooden door to the tune of Rs.1500/- and it was done in furtherance of their common intention and thereby committed offences under Section 448, 427, 294(b) read with 34 IPC. Police has registered the case on the basis of the statement recorded from petitioner on 17.10.2008 and after completing the investigation, laid the charge which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate. 2. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence of Pws 1 to 6, Exts.P1 to P3, Mos 1 to 4, Dws 1 and 2 and Exts.D1 to D4, acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal CRRP 3305/2008 2 Procedure. Learned Magistrate also directed to register a case against the petitioner under Section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure finding that there was no reasonable cause for making the accusation against the accused. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 and on the evidence, it should have been found that accused trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the petitioner and caused damages to the front door after uttering obscene words and committed the offences and therefore the order of acquittal is illegal. 4. Though this court is competent to interfere with an order of acquittal, in exercise of the revisional powers, it could be done only if there was glaring defect in the procedure followed or manifest error on a point of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate, I do not find any perverse appreciation of evidence. No material evidence was omitted to be appreciated. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate, Ext.P1 is the first version of the incident disclosed. As per Ext.P1, at about 5.30 pm, there was an incident and the CRRP 3305/2008 3 allegation was that husband of the petitioner had shown his private parts to a minor girl and thereafter petitioner remained inside her house and at about 7.30 pm, all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the courtyard and uttering obscene words, caused damages to the front door and committed the offences. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence, found that police has registered Crime 361 of 2006 based on Ext.D2 F.I.Statement in respect of the first incident against husband of the petitioner for the alleged misbehaviour and police had reached the scene of occurrence at about 7 pm and husband of the petitioner had got inside the house and locked the door from inside and they were not prepared to open the door and therefore husband of petitioner could not be arrested. If that be the case and the incident had happened at 7.30 pm as alleged in Ext.P1, it could have occurred at a time, when police was present at the scene of occurrence. In view of the improbability of the very prosecution case, at the time of evidence, as PW1, petitioner and PW2, her husband and PW3, their son attempted to shift the time to between 6 and 7 pm. On going through the evidence, it cannot be said that appreciation of evidence was perverse. There is no reason to interfere with CRRP 3305/2008 4 the order of acquittal. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner then argued that direction to register M.C.32 of 2008 is to be quashed. I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate under Section 250 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is entitled to raise all his contentions while defending M.C.32 of 2008. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-