Kerala High Court
Chacko George vs State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938
CRL.REV.PET.NO. 265 OF 2006 ( )
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.138/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-I,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 30-05-2005
---------------------------
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------
CHACKO GEORGE, S/O.CHACKO,
PUTHENPURAVADAKKETHIL VEEDU,
KALANJOOR MURI, KALANJOOR VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. ASOKAN @ OMANAKUTTAN,
S/O.HARIDAS, MEMURIYIL VEEDU,
ATHIRUNKAL, KOODAL MURI,
KOODAL VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
3. SYAMALA, W/O.ASOKAN,
MEMURIYIL VEEDU, ATHIRUNKAL,
KOODAL MURI, KOODAL VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.P.SATHI
R2& R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC
SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.A.S.SABU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
NS
P.D. RAJAN, J.
------------------------
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.265 of 2006
----------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2016
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the defacto complainant against the judgment of acquittal in C.C. No.138 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta. The charge against the accused is that on 22.11.2003 at 7.30 p.m., A1 and A2, trespassed into the courtyard of PW2 by uttering abusive words and A1 fisted on the left leg of PW2 and pierced his right thumb into his left eye and caused injury to his eye. The 2nd accused scuffled with CW4. When PW1 resisted the 2nd accused, she forcibly caught hold on the private parts of PW2 and thus caused injury. The 1st accused also stamped on the back side of PW1 and caused pain thereby committed the offences under Secs.448, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short). For this, Koodal Police registered a crime and after completing investigation, Sub Inspector, Koodal Police Station laid charge in the trial Court.
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.265 of 2006 2
2. In pursuance of trial, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Against that, the defacto complainant preferred this revision petition.
3. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that the trial court acquitted the accused without considering the oral and documentary evidence of PW1 and PW2. Another case C.C. No.130 of 2004 was also filed, but the accused was acquitted by the trial court. While considering the above two cases, it is clear that the real aggressors were respondents 2 and 3 in this case. They have no authority to trespass into the property, but the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 contended that prima facie no evidence was produced in the trial court to prove the case hence the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in that case.
4. While exercising the power under Sec.401 of Crl. Rev. Pet. No.265 of 2006 3 the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), this Court can exercise all of its powers under Sec.386 Cr.P.C., to ascertain the legality, correctness and propriety of the findings of the trial court. Revision petitioner was examined as PW2 in the trial court. His evidence shows that on 22.11.2003 at 7.30 p.m., A1 and A2 came to his house and entered into their room. When PW2 obstructed them, A1 fisted on his left eye and pierced his thumb into his eye. When he pulled the first accused, he bite on his right thumb. The 2nd accused also entered inside the room and quarrelled with his daughter- in-law. Seeing the scuffle between the 2nd accused and his daughter-in-law, he resisted them, at that time, the 2nd accused caught hold on the private parts and caused pain. In cross examination, he admitted that there is a connected case in the same transaction. PW3 supported the evidence of PW2 and reiterated the same version given by PW2. PW4, who is the daughter in law also supported PW2. PW5, an independent witness supported the prosecution case. PW9, who is the independent witness, did not support the prosecution case. Crl. Rev. Pet. No.265 of 2006 4
5. In this context, I have examined the medical evidence in this case. PW1, the doctor who treated PW2 issued Ext.P1 wound certificate. Ext.P2 is the discharge certificate. PW1 noticed rheumatic cataract on the left eye of PW1. No other injuries were noted by PW1. The medical evidence is not corroborating the evidence of occurrence witnesses. PW7 attested Ext.P5 scene mahazar. PW6, another doctor who had treated PW2 issued Ext.P4 certificate. The doctor noted contusion on the left eye and laceration on the front part right thump. PW8, the Assistant Sub Inspector, Koodal Police station recorded Ext.P3 statement. Ext.P6 is the FIR. The Sub Inspector PW10 laid charge in the trial court. A perusal of the above evidence shows that prima facie no materials were produced in the trial court to prove the alleged assault. The learned Magistrate rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused.
There is no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE NS/13/07/2016