IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3529 of 2008()
1. SATHI, W/O.RAJAPPAN, ARUPATHILCHIRA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. MRITHUNJAYAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 3529 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant, who was
examined as PW2 in C.C. 736 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Ambalapuzha. Second respondent was the
accused. Prosecution case was that on 20.11.2003 at about 10
a.m. second respondent criminally trespassed into the paddy
field belonging to PW2 and voluntarily caused hurt by inflicting
injury on her left shoulder with a stick and thereby committed
offence under section 447 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Based
on Ext.P1 F.I. Statement of PW1, Ext.P4 FIR was registered on
22.11.2003 and after investigation, charge was laid. Second
respondent pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 8
witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P5. On the side of the defence
two witnesses were examined and two exhibits were marked.
Based on the evidence learned Magistrate acquitted second
respondent under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The order of acquittal is challenged in the revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner
CRRP 3529/08 2
was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned
Magistrate was not justified in ordering acquittal of the second
respondent on flimsy grounds. It was argued that even though
prosecution has a specific case that second respondent
committed an offence under section 324 of IPC and PW6 the
Doctor was examined and Ext.P3 wound certificate was marked,
there was no discussion on the commission of the offence under
section 324 of IPC and based on the finding that no offence
under section 447 of IPC was committed second respondent was
acquitted and the order of acquittal is illegal. Learned counsel
also argued that evidence of PW2, the injured, was corroborated
by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and fact that PW2 sustained
injuries is proved by the evidence of PW6 and Ext.P3 and the
delay of two days in lodging FIR should not have been given
undue importance by the learned Magistrate and as the order of
acquittal is illegal it is to be set aside.
4. Learned Magistrate elaborately considered the
evidence. Though there is no specific finding with regard to the
offence under section 324 of IPC, the said case could be
accepted only if the version with regard to the offence under
section 447 of IPC is acceptable. Learned Magistrate analyzed
CRRP 3529/08 3
the evidence in the proper perspective. Revision petitioner
when examined as PW2 admitted that the Sub Inspector of
police who is the brother of Rajendran is cultivating paddy in
the field of PW2. Evidence of PW2 is that immediately after the
incident her husband had gone to the police station and
informed police and only thereafter proceeded to the hospital. If
that be the case there would not have been a delay of two days
in lodging the first information statement or registering the case
especially when PW2 is connected with the local Sub Inspector.
Learned Magistrate elaborately considered the evidence of PW2
on the one hand and evidence of witnesses PW3 and 4. So long
as appreciation of evidence was not perverse and the view taken
by the learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence is a
reasonable view that could be taken it is not for this Court in
exercising the revisional powers, to interfere with the order of
acquittal. On going through the judgment it cannot be said that
the view taken by learned Magistrate is not a possible or
reasonable view warranting interference in exercise of
revisional powers. Revision is dismissed.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-