IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRL.A.No. 87 of 2007() ---------------------- SC.125/2000 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------- ANDREWS @ FRANCIS, AGED 39, S/O.DASAN, KUZHIVILAKATHU AZHIVILAKOM VEEDU, SHANGUMUGHAM WARD, PETTAH VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SRI.T.K.SUJITH SRI.V.SHYAMOHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, ALONG WITH CRRC NO. 2 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ORDER IN CRL.A. NO. 87 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011. Balkrishnan,J. The first accused in Sessions case No.1125/2000 of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has filed the aforesaid appeal. One Rajan was shown as the third witness in the charge sheet filed by the police. During trial PW2 deposed that his mother was murdered not only by his father(first accused) but also by Rajan mentioned above. The then learned trial Judge arrayed Rajan mentioned above as second accused by invoking the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Though that order was challenged before this court the petitioner therein was unsuccessful in getting that order reversed. Thereafter the trial was proceeded CRL.A. NO. 87 OF 2007 -:2:- against both the accused. PW2, the son of the first accused again deposed before the trial court with regard to the overt act of both the accused. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the first accused and sentenced to imprisonment for life. But the second accused was acquitted. The appeal was heard in part. It could be noticed that PW2 is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. It was relying upon the evidence of PW2 the first accused was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. With regard to the evidence given by PW2 the learned trial Judge has stated in paragraph 8 page 5 as follows. “And his evidence is that CW3 along with his father murdered his mother. Thus, what we can see is that in 2002 as well as in while giving the evidence in 2006 his version regarding the incident is almost one and the same. The core CRL.A. NO. 87 OF 2007 -:3:- of the evidence was not changed even though some contradictions and omissions are brought out by the defence.” 2. CW3 mentioned in the portion quoted above is the second accused Rajan. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and also the evidence given by PW2. We are of the considered view that the evidence was not appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge in the correct perspective. Unfortunately no appeal has been filed by the State. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that it is actually a case where suo motu revision has to be taken by this Court against the verdict of acquittal of the second accused. For the reasons already stated suo motu revision is taken u/s 397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C. against the verdict of acquittal of accused No.2. CRL.A. NO. 87 OF 2007 -:4:- 3. Issue notice to Rajan, second accused in S.C.1125/2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Registry to number the proceedings as Crl.R.C. Registry will issue urgent notice to respondent returnable within ten days. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/-