IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 376 of 2000()
1. K.P.SUNIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.RAJA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :12/07/2007
O R D E R
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
----------------------------------------
Crl.A.No.376 of 2000
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.200/93 in the
court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nourth Paravur with
respect to the offences under Sections 451, 323, 321 and 506(ii)
IPC.
2. The case of the complainant is that on 25.11.1992 at
11 p.m., the accused committed house trespass by entering into
the varandah of his house and took him out and manhandled and
threatened.
3. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted the
testimony of PWs’ 1 to 3 and Exts. P1 and P2. DW1, the Circle
Inspector, investigated the case when the complaint filed was
forwarded to the police was examined at the instance of the
defence; and got marked Exts. D1 to D5. The trial court noted a
number of contradictions in the evidence of PW1 in contrast to his
complaint filed. It is noted that he had stated that he was fisted
on both his cheeks by the accused when he was taken to the
CRA376/2000 Page numbers
police jeep and at near the jeep. But he emphatically denied the
same when he was examined and stated that he was fisted before
taking to the jeep. His version that he was subjected to criminal
intimidation is not mentioned in the complaint. It was also noted
that according to him he had swelling on the face. The same is
the version of PW2, the mother of PW1 also. But PW2, the doctor,
who issued Ext. P2 wound certificate has testified that there was
no external injuries and there was only complaint of pain. He has
also mentioned that complaint of pain can be pretended. With
respect to the earlier private complaint filed the Police has filed a
refer report. i.e., Ext. P5 which has been proved by PW1, the
Circle Inspector of Police, who has deposed that the complaint
was filed as the complainant was aggrieved on account of the fact
that he was taken by the police in the night and taken to various
places. It is the defence version that he was taken by the police to
detect the accused involved in a case of clash between RSS and
Marxist workers and in which one person sustained cut injuries. It
is also noted that no independent witnesses have been examined.
In the circumstances, I find that the conclusion arrived at by the
CRA376/2000 Page numbers
court below is a possible one. Hence, in appeal, against acquittal
this court is not entitled to interfere, in the light of the findings of
the court below.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
csl