IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 393 of 2001()
1. SREEDHARAN NAIR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNIL PRASAD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :10/02/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
Crl.R.P.393/2001
--------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009
ORDER
The defacto complainant in C.C.No.393/99 on the
files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II,
Perambra, is the petitioner in this Revision petition.
Accused were charged for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of
the IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on
14.2.1999 at about 11.00 a.m, when CW1, the defacto
complainant was waiting for his bus in Perambra-
Meppayur public road, the accused had in
furtherance of their common intention, caused hurt
on him; A2 had wrongfully restrained him and A1 beat
him with an iron rod on his head. He sustained
injuries thereby and the accused have, committed the
offence as aforementioned.
3. Prosecution examined PWs1 to 10, Ext.P4 is the
FIR in crime No.44/99 of Perambra police station
registered on 15.2.1999.
Crl.R.P.393/2001
2
4. It came out in evidence that a case has been
registered against the defacto complainant in this case,
as evidenced by FIR in crime No.44/99 of the same police
station and the calender case is registered against him
which is pending trial as C.C.No.237/99 of the same
Court. Defence taken by the accused was that A1 has a
property near to the scene of occurrence and that he
had sent persons there for plucking coconuts, that the
said persons were obstructed by the defacto complainant
and his wife, that A1 had gone to the spot and a scuffle
took place between the defacto complainant and A1, and
A1 sustained injuries thereby. A crime was registered
against the defacto complainant as aforementioned. He
is facing trial for the same transaction that took place on
14.2.1999.
5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court
came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
defence seems to be more probable and gives a better
picture of the incident which took place on 14.2.1999.
It was also found by the trial Court that injuries of A1
Crl.R.P.393/2001
3
were not clearly proved by the prosecution. The Court
below therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused.
6. I heard learned counsel on both sides.
7. Counsel on both sides submit that taking note of the
fact that the incident took place more than ten years
ago and since essentially the dispute between the
parties is of a civil nature, there is every possibility of
the parties deciding to compound the offence, since the
offences are compoundable.
8. I also take note of the fact that there is a counter
case as C.C.No.237/99 arising from the same
transaction. As noted above, defence taken by the
accused in the present case is that it was the defacto
complainant and his wife who obstructed plucking of
coconuts from the property of A1 and what took place
was a scuffle between PW1 and A1 and that it is A1
who sustained injuries as such. It is therefore, clear
that it would not only have been appropriate but it was
also necessary that the case and the counter case were
Crl.R.P.393/2001
4
tried together. That was not done. This, in my view,
resulted in injustice.
9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside
and C.C.No.393/99 is remanded back to the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Perambra, to
be tried along with C.C.No.237/99. I make it clear that
I have interfered with the order of acquittal only on
account of the pendency of C.C.No.237/99 and taking
note of the submissions of both sides that there is an
imminent possibility of the parties moving the Court
below for compounding the offence. In the
circumstances of the case, taking note of the fact that
one of the parties is employed abroad, the Court below
shall entertain the application for compounding the
offence, even if it is presented through a counsel.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs