IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3616 of 2007()
1. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. KOTHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SIVADASAN, S/O. V.R.C.MENON,
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/01/2009
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No.3616 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner, the defacto complainant in C.C.
378 of 2003 filed the revision challenging the order of acquittal
passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery under
section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution case
is that on 2.8.2003 while revision petitioner, who was examined
as PW1 along with PWs 2 and 3 were doing spade works near the
property of the accused, second respondent, the accused came
running armed with a pick axe and hurled abuses at revision
petitioner and slapped on his cheek and inflicted an injury on his
left leg with the pick axe and thereby committed offences under
section 323, 324 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code.
2. PW1 was examined by PW7, the Doctor, who issued
Ext.P5 wound certificate on 2.8.2003 at 11.30 a.m. from the
Taluk Hospital, Wadakkanchery. PW1 lodged Ext.P1 F.I.
Statement only on 9.8.2003 based on which PW8, the Sub
Inspector investigated the case, prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar
CRRP3616/2007
2
and after completing investigation, lodged the charge. Second
respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 8
witnesses, marked 5 exhibits and identified MO1 the pick axe.
On the evidence, learned Magistrate acquitted second
respondent holding that prosecution did not establish any of the
offences. The order of acquittal is challenged in this revision
contending that learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate
the evidence and there is no reason to discard the evidence of
PW1 corroborated by PWs 2 and 3.
3. On going through the evidence on record and the
finding of the learned Magistrate, it cannot be said that
appreciation of evidence was perverse. Though PW1, the
injured, was examined and his evidence was supported by PWs 2
and 3, learned Magistrate found that their evidence cannot be
relied on. Ext.P5 wound certificate with the evidence of PW7
shows only a small lacerated wound, which could not have been
caused by a pick axe as claimed by PW1 and corroborated by
PWs 2 and 3. Even though the incident was on 2.8.2003, Ext.P1
F.I.Statement was lodged only on 9.8.2003. The fact that
revision petitioner was discharged only on that day is not a
CRRP3616/2007
3
sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. When the entire
evidence is appreciated in the proper perspective, the view taken
by the learned Magistrate is definitely a reasonable and possible
view that could be taken on proper appreciation of the evidence.
There is no credible or acceptable evidence to prove the
offences. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere
with the order of acquittal.
Revision is dismissed.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
okb