Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 Crl.Rev.Pet.No.212 OF 2003(S) AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2001 IN CRA 56/2001 OF SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2001 IN CC 535/1997 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,MALAPPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: SAROJINI,W/O.NARAYANAN, KADANNAKKUZHY,NEAR MSP WORKSHOP, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND APPELLANT/ACCUSED: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2 C.CHATTUKUTTY,S/O.KUNHAN, ERIJILAM HOUSE,NEAR MSP WORKSHOP, MALAPPURAM P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PP MS.M N MAYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No representation for the revision petitioner. Perused the entire materials on record.
2. The revision petitioner is the defacto
complainant and PW1 in C.C.No. 535/1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Malappuram, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. By judgment dated 22.02.2001, the learned
Magistrate sentenced the accused to pay a fine of `1,500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 323 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 324 of IPC. The accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant preferred Crl.Appeal No. 56/2001 before the court of Sessions Manjeri. By
judgment dated 29.09.2001, the learned Sessions Judge
allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. Challenging the acquittal, the defacto complainant filed the present revision petition before this Court.
4. As early as on 07.08.2015, this Court passed
an order directing the revision petitioner to take steps to issue notice to the second respondent by speed post with a specific direction, if no steps are taken as directed, the revision petition shall continue in the disposal list. Despite the direction issued, no steps are taken. No representation for the revision petitioner as well.
5. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P4. In Crl.Appeal No.
evidence in detail and entered a finding that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the offences against the accused beyond doubt. The appellate court has taken into consideration of the fact that in the counter case for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, PW1 had been convicted. Hence the lower appellate court is of the view that, it was open for the accused to resist the same in exercise of right of private defence available to him. On a consideration of the entire evidence, the appellate court entered a finding that the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC are not brought out in evidence.
6. On a reconsideration of the entire facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellate court has taken a probable view and no sufficient reasons are brought out to set aside the order of acquittal in revision. The order of the court below acquitting the accused is not perverse. Hence the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- N. ANIL KUMAR JUDGE ncd