IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 123 of 2004() ----------------------------- CC.425/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------- T.U.SATHYAVATHY W/O. JANARDHANAN, PUDUKKATTIL HOUSE, PALLAM, P.O.THOTTIPPAL, TRICFHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. JAYACHANDRAN S/O. UNNI, THRIPPAKKAL HOUSE, MUKKATTUKARA, NETTISSERY, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SRI.P.M.RAFIQ FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.123 OF 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd August, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, who was examined as PW1 and the de facto complainant in C.C.425/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur filed this revision challenging the order of acquittal. Learned Magistrate as per judgment dated 20/9/2003 acquitted first respondent for the offence under Section 341, 323 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that learned Magistrate did not properly CRRP 123/04 2 appreciate the evidence and first respondent was acquitted for the sole reason that Pws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses and a suit for partition is pending between them. According to the petitioner they are not sufficient grounds to disbelieve the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 when no contradiction in their evidence was pointed out. 4. Pws.1,2 and 3 and first respondent are the sisters and brothers. PW4 is the husband of PW1. Evidence of Pws.1 to 3 establish that except the petitioner all other sisters are on one side and they instituted a suit for partition claiming a share in the family house, where first respondent is residing. Prosecution case is that on 21/2/1999, when Sudhakaran the other brother an epilepsy patient was discharged from the CRRP 123/04 3 hospital, Pws.1 to 3 took him to the family house so that he could live therein. First respondent did not like it and uttering obscene words, he restrained Pws.1 to 3 and also beat PW1 and voluntarily caused hurt. 5. Learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence acquitted the first respondent finding that there is no independent evidence with regard to the incident. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is definitely a possible view which could be taken on appreciation of evidence. First respondent and his family alone is residing in the family house. Even if the other co-owners have a right of entry into that house, they cannot forcibly take Sudhakaran, the other brother to the said house compelling first respondent to CRRP 123/04 4 permit him to reside in that house, especially when evidence show that at times Sudhakaran even turns violent. In such circumstances, even if first respondent might have obstructed the sisters taking Sudhakaran into that house. Based on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 alone it cannot be said that their version is the true facts. On the facts and evidence. I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of acquittal. Revision fails and is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.