IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 97 of 2007(B)
1. GOPI, S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJAPPAN (ACCUSED), S/O.RAGHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 97 OF 2007
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.453
of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Cherthala. First respondent is the accused. Revision is filed
challenging the order of acquittal passed by learned Magistrate.
Prosecution case was that on 1.3.2003 at bout 1030 a.m. PW3
had gone to the shop of the first respondent at Puthanangadi
junction and from the shop first respondent caught the tip of the
penis of PW3 with his fingers and caused injury and tried to put
his penis into the mouth of PW3 and attempted to commit
unnatural intercourse and thereby committed the offence under
section 511 read with section 377 of Indian Penal Code. When
the charge for offence under section 377 read with section 511
of IPC was framed, first respondent pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution examined PW1 the father of PW3 who lodged Ext.P3
F.I. Statement and the brother of PW1 as PW4 and the doctor as
PW2 apart from the official witnesses. On the evidence learned
Magistrate found the petitioner not guilty and acquitted him. It
CRRP 97/07 2
is challenged in this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for first respondent were heard.
3. Unless there is any glaring defect in the procedure
followed by the learned Magistrate or a perverse appreciation of
evidence, it is not for this Court in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction to interfere with an order of acquittal. So long as
the view taken by the learned Magistrate on appreciation of
evidence is a possible and reasonable view, the order of
acquittal cannot be interfered.
4. On going through the judgment of the learned
Magistrate it is absolutely clear that appreciation of evidence
was proper. Even if the evidence is reappreciated, findings
arrived at by the learned Magistrate could only be arrived at.
Evidence of PW1 shows that after PW3 came to him,
complaining mischief on the part of first respondent, along with
PW1 revision petitioner proceeded to the shop of first
respondent and then along with first respondent went to the
doctor and when PW3 was examined by PW2 the doctor, revision
petitioner was present. If petitioner attempted to commit a
heinous offence as claimed by PWs 1 to 3, it cannot be believed
CRRP 97/07 3
that PW1 would either approach first respondent or take first
respondent to the doctor along with the victim. The evidence of
PW3 establishes that there was a case against PW3 and his
friend alleging that they committed theft of coco cola from the
shop of the brother of first respondent and after much effort the
case as against the friend of PW3 was settled and the case as
against PW3 was not settled. When the entire evidence is
appreciated in the proper perspective it is absolutely clear that
evidence of PWs 1 and 3 cannot be relied. The evidence of PW2
shows that injuries noted in Ext.P2 wound certificate could have
been caused even as suggested by the first respondent. There is
no merit in the revision. Hence revision is dismissed.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-