IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3093 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ CRA. NO.422/2005 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM. C.C. NO.1550/2001 OFJUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHANGANACHERRY. .... REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------- JOHN.K.J., S/O.JOSEPH THOTTAKKADU BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 & STATE ----------------------- 1. A.I.LOUIS, S/O.LOUIS, AGED 42, AKKARAKADUPPIL HOUSE, THOTTACKADUKARA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK 2. JOSEPH @ SUNNYKUTTY, AGED 55, S/O.SCARIAH, AKKARAKADAPPU HOUSE PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 3. JOSEPH AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH PADINJARAKADUPPU HOUSE, AMBALAKAVALA,THOTTAKADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 4. JACOB @ CHANDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.KURIAKOSE, THEKKENATTU HOUSE THOTTAKKADU KARA, THOTTAKADU VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3093 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner, the defacto complainant is challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in CrlA.422 of 2005. Respondents 1 to 4 are the accused. They were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 447 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. First respondent was also convicted for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. It was challenged in Crl.A.422 of 2005. 2. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, found that evidence of Pws 1 to 3 were relied on by the learned Magistrate to convict the accused and learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence. It was found that evidence of PW1 is at variance with his statement and Pws 2 and 3 are interested witnesses and there is no acceptable evidence to establish the offence. Learned Sessions Judge also found that there is a civil dispute between the defacto complainant and petitioner and it is for that reason case has been foisted. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Sessions Judge was not justified in CRRP 3093/2008 2 interfering with the conviction and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and there is no contradiction as found by learned Sessions Judge and therefore the order of acquittal is not sustainable. 4. Though exercising the revisional powers, this court is competent to interfere with the order of acquittal, unless there is manifest illegality due to glaring defect in procedure or resultant miscarriage of justice, an order of acquittal cannot be interfered. So long as appreciation of evidence by the Sessions Judge is not perverse, appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered by substituting the views of this court to that of the appellate court. 5. On going through the judgment of appellate court, it cannot be said appreciation of evidence was perverse. There is no manifest illegality. No material evidence was overlooked leading to manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-