IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 330 of 2000()
1. IBRAHIM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NAZAR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.JALEEL
For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :01/07/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No. 330 of 2000
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009.
ORDER
This is a revision against order of acquittal. The
revision petitioner is PW2, who is the injured and the de facto
complainant. According to him, on 16.10.1995 at about 10.45
p.m. accused numbers 1 to 5 formed into an unlawful assembly
and assaulted him using iron pipes while he was going through
the road on his cycle in front of a temple. Accused nos.1 to 3
wrongfully restrained him and and beat him with iron pipes. He
sustained fracture to his right arm. Accused 4 and 5 also
attacked him and the overt acts were committed at the instigation
of A6 to A8. Accused were charge-sheeted for offences under
Section 143,147, 148, 341, 120(b), 324, 326 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 8 were examined
and Exts.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked on the side of
prosecution. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the accused.
3. The trial court found that PW2 who is the injured did
not reveal the name of any of the accused to the doctor. It was
[Crl.R.P.330/2000] 2
also found that evidence of PW2 cannot be relied upon in the
absence of independent corroboration. The only independent
witness turned hostile to the prosecution and thus prosecution
did not succeed in proving the guilt of the accused is the
conclusion of the the trial court. The trial court also placed
reliance upon the decision reported in Devinder v. State of
Haryana (1996 Criminal Law Journal 4461 (SC) to arrive at a
decision. The evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are close relatives
of PW2, were also chance witnesses and hence their evidence
was not relied upon. The trial court on the basis of such findings
acquitted the accused.
4. The revision petitioner raised a ground in the revision
memo that the trial court went wrong in finding that the evidence
of PW2 is not believable, on the ground that the name of the
accused were not stated to the doctor. It was argued that though
there was such an omission, he mentioned the details in the first
information statement. It was also contended that there is no
material discrepancy or contradiction in the evidence of PW2.
which is corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4. The
evidence of PWs 3 and 4 cannot be said to be wholly unreliable
[Crl.R.P.330/2000] 3
and hence the rejection of their evidence was incorrect, is the
contention.
5. I have gone through the records and the evidence of PWs
1 to 4, who are the occurrence witnesses, coupled with the
evidence of the doctor PW5 and Ext.P2 wound certificate and also
the impugned judgment. But, I do not find any perversity in the
findings entered into by the trial court. As per the evidence of
PW2 and first information statement, accused no.1 was known to
PW2 very closely and there were earlier incidents between them.
But, inspite of this fact, PW2 did not state his name to the
doctor or even his involvement in the occurrence in any manner.
There is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming for non-
mentioning of the name of accused to the doctor at the earliest
point of time.
6. It can also be seen that PW1, who is only an independent
witness, turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of PWs 3
and 4 also does not reveal the identity of the accused who
committed the offences. They have not identified the accused
from the witness box. In fact, they only mentioned that “accused”
have acted in a particular manner etc. On the basis of such
[Crl.R.P.330/2000] 4
evidence given by PWs 2 to 4, the trial court was right in
rejecting their evidence and holding the accused not guilty, for
want of evidence. On going through the records, I do not find
sufficient cogent materials to come to the conclusion that the
accused committed the offences alleged against them beyond
reasonable doubt. There is dearth of satisfactory evidence and
hence there is no ground to interfere with the order of acquittal.
This Court can interfere if there is perversity in the findings of
facts, illegality, impropriety or irregularity. But I do not find any.
This revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.
[Crl.R.P.330/2000] 5
K. HEMA, J.
—————————————————
Crl. R.P. No. 330 of 2000
—————————————————
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009.
ORDER