IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 179 of 2002()
1. K.V.SARSWATHY, W/O.K.GOPALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.KANNAN, RESIDING AT PODIPALLAM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :19/03/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
Crl.A.NO.179 of 2002
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The crime registered at the instance of the appellant,
after investigation by police ended in a refer report. The
appellant, the de facto complainant, then filed a private
complaint for prosecuting the accused for offences under
Sections 447, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
After taking evidence, charge was framed against the accused
for the offences referred to above, and they pleaded not guilty.
On the side of the complainant PW1 to PW4 were examined
and Exhibits P1 and P2 were marked. After appreciating the
materials produced, the learned Magistrate concluded that the
charge imputed against the accused had not been brought
home and, thereupon, a judgment of acquittal was rendered in
favour of the accused. Questioning the legality and correctness
of the acquit, the de facto complainant has preferred this
appeal.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on the evening
on 9.4.1995, pursuant to a dispute between the complainant
Crl.A.No.179/02 2
and the accused over the ownership and right of enjoyment of
a jack tree, situated in the border of the property of the
parties, the accused beat the complainant and also her
husband with a stick, and both of them sustained injuries.
3. PW1, the complainant, PW2, her husband. PW3, an
occurrence witness, was examined in the case. PW4, the
doctor was also examined, through whom Exhibit P1 series,
wound certificate register and wound certificate of the injured
witnesses were proved.
4. I heard learned counsel for the appellant. From the
submissions made by the learned counsel, it is noticed that
another crime over the very same incident, at the instance of
the accused, was also registered by the police. The learned
counsel is not able to state what was the culmination in that
case. It was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for
appellant that the accused in the present case even at the time
of the incident was aged 80 years, as seen from his age
recorded in his complaint before the police. His age is shown
as 60 years in the complaint moved by the present appellant.
Crl.A.No.179/02 3
Furthermore, the facts and circumstances involved in the case
would show that the dispute related to right over a jack tree.
The ownership and right of enjoyment over that property was
necessarily and directly involved in the case. Where the
incident arose on account of exercise of right over the
property, who among the parties had the better right, and
overtact, if any, in exercise of such right was justified, had to
be examined. There is no material on those aspects. Further
registration of another crime over the very same incident, if
that had led to a final report of indictment, demanded the trial
of the cases together, one as the main case and other as the
counter case. Evidently, that was also not followed. After
lapse of nearly 14 years after the incident, at this stage, the
interest of justice will no way be advanced if the order of
acquittal is set aside and the case is remitted for fresh
consideration, especially where the accused is shown to be
pretty old. There is no representation for the accused in the
present appeal and it cannot be said with certainty whether he
is still alive. Taking over all view of the facts and
Crl.A.No.179/02 4
circumstances involved, I find that a quietus has to be made of
all issues and further prolongation of the proceedings is not
called for.
The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
vgs.