Trial court acquitted respondents in C.C. No. 483/2004 for alleged assault; petitioner sought leave to appeal under Section 379 CrPC via Crl.L.P. High Court reviewed trial record, found evidence insufficient, and dismissed the leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal under Section 379 CrPC is dismissed; respondents remain acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN
MONDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2007 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1928
Crl.L.P..No. 158 of 2007()
-------------------------CC.483/2004 of J.M.F.C.,ALATHUR
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------
VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O KRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAVATHU VEEDU, NELLIYAMKUNNAM, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.D.M.SAJEEVAN
RESPONDENTS: STATE & ACCUSED
VANOOR, ALATHUR.
R1-BY P.P.SRI.P. RAVINDRA BABU
THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K. THANKAPPAN, J.
-------------------------------------CRL.L.P.NO.158 OF 2007
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2007.
O R D E R
The complainant in C.C.No.483/2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alathur, is the petitioner. It is complained before the magistrate that the petitioner/complainant was attacked by the respondents/accused six in number on 24.11.2001 at about 1 p.m in connection with a dispute regarding the property stood in the name of the father of the petitioner. It is further alleged in the complaint that the respondents and some others assembled into an unlawful assembly on the day of the incident and they came to the spot with deadly weapons and after having attacked the complainant, she was abandoned by the accused and subsequently she filed a complaint before the police. But the police had referred the case. Hence, she filed a protest complaint before the court. To prove the case against the respondents, the complainant herself was examined as PW1 and other witnesses were also examined. The complainant also proved Ext.P1 wound
CRL.L.P.NO.158/2007 2
certificate issued by PW3, the doctor. After having considered the entire evidence, the trial court found that the complainant/petitioner failed to prove any case against the respondents. Hence, the respondents were acquitted. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial court had not considered the entire evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the case against the respondents. But, after going through the judgment of the trial court and other records made available, this Court is of the view that the trial court had considered the entire evidence adduced by the complainant and found that the complainant/petitioner failed to prove any case against the respondents. The trial court also found that the injury alleged to have been found on the body of the complainant is also due to a fall and the doctor also had not stated anything about the nature of the injury noted in Ext.P1. That apart, the eye witnesses including the complainant had not given true version of the case before the court. Hence, the trial magistrate found that the evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the case is not sufficient to hold that the respondents have committed any offence against the petitioner/complainant.
CRL.L.P.NO.158/2007 3
Accordingly, leave to appeal stands dismissed.
K. THANKAPPAN, JUDGE.
cl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order acquitting the respondents in a criminal case involving allegations of assault and unlawful assembly.
Whether the trial court had considered the entire evidence adduced by the complainant.
Vijayalaxmi
State
Krishnan
Surentran
Visalakshi
Rajan
K. Thankappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
