IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3250 of 2008() 1. SAJITHA, D/O.A.I. ABDUL MAJEED, ... Petitioner 2. BEEVATHU, W/O.AMMUKUNJI, DO. 3. YOUSEPH, S/O.AMMUKUNJI, DO.DO. Vs 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I.OF POLICE ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :28/10/2008 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3250 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 28th day of October,2008 ORDER
Petitioner is the de facto complainant in
C.C.864/2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of
I Class, Kodungallur. Respondents 1 to 4 are the
accused out of which second respondent is no more.
First respondent is the husband of the petitioner.
Petitioner lodged Ext.P7 complaint numbered as CMP
8459/2002 before Judicial First Class Magistrate.
Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under
section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for
investigation based on which Ext.P3 F.I.R was
registered. Police after investigation laid the
charge for the offences under sections 498A, 406,
and 420 read with section 34 of IPC. Accused
appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded
not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, seven
witnesses were examined and seven exhibits were
marked. Learned Magistrate on the evidence found
CRRP3250/2008 2
the accused not guilty. They were acquitted under
section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The
order of acquittal is challenged in this revision
filed under section 397 read with section 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
was heard.
3. Learned counsel vehemently argued that
learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the
evidence and appreciation of evidence was
perverse. It was argued that the fact that first
respondent husband admitted in Ext.P5 power of
attorney that gold ornaments of the revision
petitioner, his wife, were sold and the funds were
utilised by the husband was not properly taken into
consideration. Learned counsel also argued that
eventhough petitioner has no case that the 20 cents
of property which was assigned by the father of the
petitioner to first respondent was the subject
matter of the power of attorney executed and
learned Magistrate wrongly took it that way and it
CRRP3250/2008 3
establishes that appreciation of evidence was
perverse. It was further argued that learned
Magistrate on the evidence found the accused
guilty and the order of acquittal is not
sustainable. Learned counsel also made available
copy of Ext.P7 complaint as well as Ext.P5 power of
attorney and the depositions of the witnesses
examined.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going
through the judgments and the depositions made
available, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the order of acquittal passed by the learned
Magistrate. So long as appreciation of evidence
was not perverse it is not for this court to
reappreciate the evidence and substitute the
findings of the learned Magistrate especially when
no material evidence was overlooked by the learned
Magistrate. On going through the judgment and the
evidence, it cannot be said that the view taken by
the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence
is not a possible or reasonable view that could be
CRRP3250/2008 4
taken on the evidence. There was flagrant violation
of procedures and resultant miscarriage of justice.
In such circumstance, revision is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006