IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 3359 of 2007()
1. AYYAPPAN CHETTIAR, S/O.SANKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MADHAVI, MADHUMANDIRATHIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. SANTHAMMA, RESIDING AT DO. DO.
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :20/09/2007
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 3359 OF 2007
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
The revision petitioner, who is the defacto complainant
in C.C.No.489/99 on the file of the JFCM, Adoor, challenges the
judgment of acquittal dated 25.6.2007 passed by the court below
under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. acquitting the two lady accused for
offences punishable under sections 427 and 506(ii) read with
section 34 IPC.
2. The case of the revision petitioner was that the two
accused ladies residing in the rented building belonging to the
revision petitioner, in furtherance of their common intention, had
committed mischief on 12.10.98 at about 12 noon by A1 calling
filthy words and intimidating the defacto complainant and showing
a dangerous weapon and A2 taking an axe from the courtyard of
the house and A1 using a spade dismantled the northern wall of
the kitchen at the central portion for a length of 1.96 metres and
both the accused removed the roof of the kitchen thus causing a
loss of Rs.10,000/- to PW1.
3. On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were
Crl.R.P.No.3359/07
: 2 :
examined as PWs 1 to 7 and 5 documents were got marked as
Exts.P1 to P5.
4. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances
put to them in the evidence for the prosecution and maintained
their innocence. They examined 4 witnesses as DWs 1 to 4 and
got marked 2 documents as Exts.D1 and D2.
5. Apart from the fact that eventhough the occurrence
took place on 12.10.98 the first information was lodged by the
revision petitioner only four days thereafter and consequent on the
failure by the police to register a crime he had persisted his
complaint by filing a private complaint before the court and getting
it forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned
Magistrate has made a careful appraisal of the oral and
documentary evidence to arrive at the conclusion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and they were accordingly
extended the benefit of doubt. It is the said judgment which is
assailed in this revision by the defacto complainant examined as
PW1.
6. Eventhough the learned counsel for the revision
Crl.R.P.No.3359/07
: 3 :
petitioner assailed the order of acquittal on various grounds, it is
not possible for this court, sitting in revision, to say that the
conclusion reached by the trial Magistrate, who had the unique
advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their credibility,
is fraught with inexcusable infirmities. This court, sitting in the
rarefied revisional jurisdiction, will be loathe to re-appreciate the
evidence and come to a different conclusion even if it were
possible.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks