High Court Kerala High Court

Susamma Kunjumon vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Susamma Kunjumon vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1128 of 2009()


1. SUSAMMA KUNJUMON, AGED 47 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. PONNAMMA SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

3. BINU SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :02/06/2009

 O R D E R
                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                CRL. R.P. NO. 1128 OF 2009
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
          Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009.

                            O R D E R

This revision is preferred against the order of acquittal

in C.C.149/05. It was a case moved as a private complaint

which was referred to the police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and

prosecution was initiated thereafter. The allegations are that

the accused trespassed into the property of CW1 and the 2nd

accused destroyed the rubber, chillu etc. and there was

wrongful confinement by the first accused and also the

allegation of infliction of injuries with a rubber stick. The

independent witnesses to the prosecution are CWs.3 to 6.

The Court gave a large number of opportunities to the

prosecution to produce CWs.3 to 6. There were issuance of

non-bailable warrants and ultimately the Court decided to

close the evidence of the prosecution and arrived at a

decision that the materials are not sufficient to prove the

guilt of the accused.

Crl.R.P. 1128 OF 2009
-:2:-

Unlike other cases, this is a case moved as a private

complaint and there was always a responsibility for the

complainant as well to procure the presence of the

witnesses. Keeping silent and quiet at that point of time and

thereafter coming to this Court with a prayer to set aside the

order of acquittal is not proper. One has to be vigilant.

What prompted the complainant to loose interest in the

prosecution is his own fault and therefore I do not want to

interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned

Magistrate. Therefore, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-