IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2547 of 2009()
1. K.T.RAZIYA, W/O. KAMMUKUTTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAIDALAVI S/O. MOOSA, AGED 30 YEARS
... Respondent
2. IRSHAD, S/O. HAMZA, AGE 25 YEARS
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP,. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :06/08/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRL. R.P. NO.2547 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009
O R D E R
————–
This revision is in challenge of acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and
2 of the charges under Sections 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code,
under Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case is that on
17.11.2005 at midnight on account of enmity towards petitioner/de
facto complainant, respondent Nos.1 and 2 set fire to her house
damaging it partly and causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- to her.
Kalpakanchery police registered crime No.367 of 2005, investigated
and charge sheeted respondent Nos.1 and 2. Prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to 4 and proved Exts.P1 to P17 and M.O.1. Exhibits D1 and D2
are marked on the side of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-III), Manjeri found that
the charge is not proved and acquitted respondent Nos.1 and 2 as
aforesaid. That acquittal is under challenge in this revision. It is
contended by learned counsel that acquittal is not legal or proper.
2. Petitioner was examined as P.W.1. There was no witness
to the alleged incident. Even according to P.W.1 she was at
Thiruvananthapuram at the relevant time and getting information
about the incident came to her house and gave information regarding
CRL. R.P. No.2547 of 2009
-: 2 :-
the same. She stated that respondents were enmical towards her.
She also stated the reason for such enmity. P.Ws.2 and 3, neighbours
were examined by the prosecution to prove that respondent Nos.1 and
2 were found near the house of petitioner while it was on fire. P.Ws.2
and 3 refused to support prosecution and denied that. Exhibits D1
and D2 are marked portions in the previous statement of P.Ws.2 and
3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that though Public
Prosecutor was permitted to put leading questions and confront
P.Ws.2 and 3 with the previous statement nothing fruitful came out.
Result is that as to the alleged involvement of respondent Nos.1 and 2
in the incident there is no evidence. Acquittal is for that reason. On
going through the judgment and hearing learned counsel I find no
irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the finding entered by the court
below in acquitting respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no merit in the
revision and it is liable to be dismissed.
Revision petition is dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv