IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2775 of 2008()
1. K.C.BALAN, S/O.CHATHU (LATE),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REMANI, D/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, NAITHYATTU
... Respondent
2. K.SAVITHRI, D/O.CHANGARAN,
3. A.K.JUBI, D/O.AANDI, VIRIPPIL HOUSE,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :16/09/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 2775 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the defacto complainant. Respondents 1 to 3 are
the accused. They were charge-sheeted for the offences under Section
323 and 324 read with 34 of IPC by Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaba
Police Station.
2. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence of Pws 1 to 8, Exts.P1 to
P6, DW1 and Exts.D1 to D3, acquitted them under Section 248(1) of
Code of Criminal Procedure. Defacto complainant, who was examined
as PW1, filed this revision under Section 397 and 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure challenging the order of acquittal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The
argument of the learned counsel is that the reason shown for the
order of acquittal by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable. It was
argued that failure to recover the weapon used for inflicting the
injuries on Pws 1 and 2 are not sufficient grounds to order acquittal
and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and
therefore the order of acquittal is to be set aside.
4. The prosecution case is that on 30.8.2004 at about 5 pm, the
three accused, who are all women, in furtherance of their common
intention, assaulted and inflicted injuries on Pws 1 and 2 and thereby
CRRP 2775/2008 2
committed the offence. Pws 1 and 2 are the injured and PW7, the
doctor who proved Exts.P4 and P5 wound certificate. He was also
examined as DW1 and proved Ext.D3 wound certificate of first
accused. PW3 is the eye witness.
5. Learned Magistrate appreciated the evidence of Pws 1 to 3
and found that their evidence cannot be relied on to find that accused
are the assailants and they inflicted injuries on Pws 1 and 2 as
deposed by them. Learned Magistrate also took note of the injuries
sustained by first respondent evidenced by Ext.D3 wound certificate
and the evidence of PW7, the Doctor.
6. On going through the judgment of learned Magistrate, I do
not find that any material evidence which was omitted to be
appreciated by learned Magistrate. An order of acquittal can be set
aside by this court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction if there
exist any manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. Even if
there is misappreciation of evidence or a wrong view of law was
taken, interference is not warranted. Learned Magistrate on
appreciating the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 found that their evidence
cannot be relied on. Proper reasons are also shown. There is no
manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice to
interfere with the order of acquittal.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-