IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3700 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CC.158/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------ SAMY, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, 54 YERS, KONAMKUZHI HOUSE KALALUNDI AMSOM, PAZHANCHANNOOR DESOM KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED 1 & 3 AND STATE ----------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.UNNEERIKUTTY, 54 YEARS, CHERIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE MUTHUKALLINGAL PO., CHALIYAM KADALUNDI AMSOM, PAZHANNUR DESOM. 2. RAJEEVAN, S/O.CHINNAN 40 YEARS KURUKALLINGAL PO,CHELIYAM KADALUNDI AMSOM, PAZHACHANNOOR DESOM KOZHIKODE. 3. S.I. OF POLICE, FEROKE POLICE STATION REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3700 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner the de facto complainant is challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, V, Kozhikode in C.C.158/2005 acquitting respondents 1 and 2 under section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case was that on 18.7.2004 in furtherance of their common intention respondents 1 and 2 at about 8 p.m wrongfully restrained the revision petitioner and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by beating with hands and thereby committed the offence under section 341, 323 read with section 34 of IPC. Respondents 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked five exhibits. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found that the evidence of PW1 is highly suspicious and eventhough the CRRP 3700/2008 2 alleged incident occurred on 18.7.2004, he approached the court only on 16.10.2004 and there is no acceptable explanation for the delay. Learned Magistrate also found that evidence does not establish the case against respondents 1 and 2 and acquitted them. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner is that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence and on the evidence respondents 1 and 2 should have been convicted. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the learned Magistrate, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of acquittal. Learned Magistrate has given valid and cogent reasons. Evidence was properly appreciated. In any case the appreciation of evidence cannot be termed perverse. The view taken by the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence is a proper and possible view that could be taken on the evidence. Hence revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006