IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.L.P..No. 576 of 2008()
1. JOHN BRITTO
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASANTHA AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/06/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
----------------------
Crl.L.P.No.576 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June 2008
O R D E R
This application is for grant of leave under Section 378(4)
cr.P.C to challenge a judgment of acquittal in a prosecution for
offences punishable inter alia under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegations in the complaint is that on
05/10/2001 at 5 a.m accused Nos.1 and 2, spouses with the
intention to trespass into the property of the complainant
trespassed into the property and indulged in acts of mischief.
The complainant is the brother of the second accused who is the
wife of the first accused. In support of the allegations, the
complainant examined himself as PW1 and examined another
witness as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.
3. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked to show that the
complainant is the owner in possession of the property in
question. The property originally belong to the complainant and
his brother and he is alleged to have purchased the brother’s
right in the property as per Ext.P6 during the pendency of the
proceedings. Admittedly, there were civil litigations between the
Crl.L.P.No.576/2008 2
parties about the right, title, interest and possession of the
property in question. Exts.P1 to P5 are documents on the
disputed question of possession/right over the property.
4. PW1 is not a witness to the occurrence. Only PW2
was examined to prove the allegations about the overt acts. The
learned Magistrate took note of the fact that the offences are
allegedly committed in respect of an item of property regarding
which there is dispute between the brother and sister. The court
further took note of the fact that at any rate the uncorroborated
evidence of PW2 cannot be accepted and acted upon to enter the
verdict of guilty and conviction against the accused.
5. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal. I must alertly
remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the
jurisdiction of this court sitting as a court of appeal considering
the challenge against a judgment of acquittal. PW2 was the only
witness who tendered evidence about the alleged incident. The
learned Magistrate felt that reliance could not be placed on such
uncorroborated testimony. I am unable to find anything so
grossly erroneous or any other vice in the said finding which
does require correction by interference in an appeal against
Crl.L.P.No.576/2008 3
acquittal. The trial court, it must always be remembered, has
the evident advantage of seeing the performance of witnesses
performing before it. Initial presumption of innocence in favour
of the witnesses gets further fortified by the judgment of
acquittal rendered by the trial court also. In any view of the
matter, I am not satisfied that there is any merit or justification
in the prayer for appellate interference against the impugned
judgment of acquittal. No purpose will be served by granting
leave. I am satisfied that leave does not deserve to be granted.
6. This Crl.L.P is in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr