Dismissed
P.Udayakumar v. State of Kerala
Kerala HCCRL.A/569/2005
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 19TH MARCH 2007 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1928
CRL.A.No. 569 of 2005(C)
-----------------------CC.366/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM ...
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT
P.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, KUZHIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KARIMANAL, KULATHUR P.O., ATTIPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:-
SREE BHAVAN KUZHIVILA, KARIMANAL, KULATHOOR P.O., ATTIPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R2, R3, R5, R6 TO R9 & R11 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V.
P.P.SRI.M.S.BREEZE FOR R1
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-3-2007 , THE COURT ON 19/03/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.Thankappan, J.
Crl.A. No.569 of 2005
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2007.
JUDGMENT
Complainant in C.C.No.366/2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. The complaint was filed under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 149 IPC against respondents 2 to 11. In the complaint it is alleged that on 16-1-2000 at 5.15 P.M. respondents 2 to 11 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons as wooden blocks and reapers with a common object to cause grievous hurt the appellant and in furtherance of the common object respondents 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 beat the appellant on different parts of his body and respondents 8 to 10 fisted him on different parts of his body and hence they committed the offence. To prove the case, the appellant was examined as PW1 and three other witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW4 and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, respondents 2 to 11 were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they were innocent and the case is foisted against them due to the strained marital relationship between the sister of the appellant and 11th respondent, her husband. After full fledged trial, the trial court found that “t he delay of giving complaint
Crl.A.569/2005
2
to police, the disagreement in the version of PW1 with the documents produced by him and the divergence in the versions offered by PW1 and his witnesses make it difficult to enter into a finding against the accused persons” .
of the view that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
K.Thankappan, Judge.
mn
Complainant
State of Kerala
Sreejith
Jayagosh
Udayakumar
Sasidharan Nair
K. Thankappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court