IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1005 of 2000(B) ------------------------------ ST.759/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFATO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ ABRAHAM THOMAS, VAKKECHIRA, KURUMPANADAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1, 3 AND 4 & STATE: --------------------------------------------------- 1. CHEIRAN, S/O. VARGHESE , KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, VETTIKUNNELBHAGAM, THOTTAKKAD. 2. REGI, S/O.ABRAHAM, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, KANNAMCHIRABHAGOM, VAGATHANAM. 3. THOMAS P. CHERIAN, S/O. CHERIAN, PAILITHANATHU HOUSE, PANGADA, KOOROPADA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,SRI.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1005 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May 2008 ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court holding respondents 1 to 3 herein, not guilty under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. It is contended by PW1, the petitioner, that the court below was not justified in disbelieving the oral testimony given by him and PW2. The learned Magistrate, in the course of the discussion about oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, had noticed that PW1 had deposed before the court that one Kunjumon, (S/o accused No.1) was also involved in the crime. The specific case of PW1 was that Kunjumon had kicked him. But Kunjumon was not on the array of the accused nor had the prosecution projected such a case. Similarly, PW2 had stated that Pailithanam Reji was also involved in the case. But the prosecution had not produced any material to incriminate the said Reji. The court below had the benefit of seeing these two witnesses. The testimonies given by these two witnesses were Crl.R.P.No.1005 OF 2000 :: 2 :: examined by the learned Magistrate who did not deem it fit to place any reliance on the version given by them. More importantly, the investigating officer was not examined. PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police who was examined in the case had deposed before the court that he had verified the investigation conducted by his predecessor Sri.Muhammed Hassan. PW5 asserted that he did not question any of the witnesses. The answers given by this witness in cross examination created only more confusion. Having perused the entire materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the court below. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes