The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an acquittal. The Court held that there was no ground for interference as the prosecution could not prove the identity of accused persons and the witness disability arose post-trial.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order of acquittal is confirmed.
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 V.RAMKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2007 / 25TH ASHADHA 1929
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1997 of 2005()
-----------------------------C.CNO.811/02 OF JFCM-I, KOTTARAKKARA
REVN. PETITIONER: DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 73 YEARS, KALPALAYAM, KARIMPINPUZHA, PAVITRESWARAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SATISH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS: STATE & ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 10:
(DELETED THE 8TH RESPONDENT FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DATED 6.3.07 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1922/07)
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
Crl. R.P. No. 1997 OF 2005 D ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007
O R D E R
Heard both sides.
On 21.3.2002 at about 10 p.m. the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons such as sword, etc. and criminally trespassed into the house of PW1 and committed mischief by damaging the door and windows and destroyed household items kept inside the house and broke 40 tiles, electric bulbs, etc. causing a loss of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) to PW1 and also criminally intimidated PW1 when he attempted to resist their act.
Crl.R.P.No.1997/05
: 2 :
JFCM-I, Kottarakkara for the aforementioned offences. As per the memorandum of evidence CWs1 to 3 are the occurrence witnesses. Out of this, CW1 was examined as PW1 and he is the revision petitioner. He supported the prosecution. CW3 was examined as PW2 and he turned hostile to the prosecution.
Crl.R.P.No.1997/05
: 3 :
evidence for the prosecution started, CW2 was prevented from being examined as a witness by virtue of any accident or other disabling factor. Admittedly, his surgery was only on 11.4.2005. The learned Magistrate has stated that in order to prove the charge PW1 alone gave evidence for the prosecution and that the other witnesses were not available in spite of repeatedly taking coercive steps. Such being the position, the revision petitioner cannot have the luxury of a further trial by giving him an opportunity to examine CW2 who has not been shown to be disabled either on 21.11.2005 or any time immediately thereafter. Admittedly, there are civil and criminal cases between the parties and a connected criminal case between the same parties had ended in acquittal. The Magistrate has observed that the prosecution was not able to prove the identity of the accused with regard to the occurrence which took place at 10 p.m. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is accordingly confirmed. Resultantly, this revision is dismissed.
(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene to grant a further trial to the revision petitioner for examination of a witness who was not disabled at the time of original trial.
NARAYANAN NAIR
STATE OF KERALA
PREMKUMAR
SANALKUMAR
SANTHANKUTTY NAIR
SREEKUMARAN THAMPI
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
