High Court dismissed an appeal against an order of acquittal in a criminal trial. The trial court had rejected the victim's evidence as exaggerated and found no true version of the incident, a finding the High Court deemed not perverse.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 28 of 2006 (C)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 754/1999 of J.M.F.C.-III, THRISSUR.
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
SARADHA,
W/O. KUNNAMBATH GOPALAKRISHNAN, ERAVIMANGALAM DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE:
R1-R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL BY ADV. SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA. R7 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESLIE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused in C.C. 754 of 1999 by judgment dated 30.4.2005, the complainant
before the court below has come up in appeal after obtaining leave of this Court.
court below. The essential facts are that in an incident which
took place on 11.6.1995 at about 8 a.m., P.W.1, the victim, who was returning after School, is alleged to have been attacked by the accused and she suffered several injuries. She was hospitalized. According to the victim, a police officer had
come to the hospital and taken her statement and she bonafide believed that appropriate steps will be taken by the police officer. Later on she came to know that nothing has been done in respect to her statement and no case has been
2
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
registered on the basis of the same. Therefore, she filed a private complaint as C.M.P. 1755 of 1997 before the JFCM court concerned. That was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Even after a long time, nothing was heard about the same and therefore the complainant filed C.M.P.6925 of 1998 enquiring about the fate of her earlier complaints. It turned out that on the enquiry made by the JFCM Court concerned, it is reported that the papers were missing. That made the complainant to file a fresh complaint.
3
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
Indian Penal Code. To the charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant therefore adduced evidence. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 and documents marked as Exts.P1 to P3. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against them and maintained that they were innocent. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. they were asked to enter on their defence. They examined D.Ws. 1 and 2 and had Exts.D1 to D2(a) marked. The court below, on an analysis of the evidence, found it difficult to accept the evidence furnished by P.W.1, the victim in the case, which according to the court below is highly exaggerated. The evidence of the two supporting witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 2 and 3, were also found to be not creditworthy and ultimately the accused were acquitted.
4
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
5
missing and finally the complainant had to file another complaint to set the law in motion show the the influence of the accused persons and the lethargy on the part of the police officers. These aspects have not been considered by the court below and the court below was not justified in acquitting the accused.
Court is exercising appellate power against an order of
6
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
acquittal, in which case the accused is armed with two presumptions, that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise and the court, after trial has found the accused innocent. Learned counsel went on to point out that unless this Court is satisfied that the findings are perverse or is based on irrelevant factors, interference may not be justified.
7
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and records show that which were later reported to be missing and also there was a fresh complaint on the basis of which action was taken, the complainant felt shy to bring on record the evidence in that regard to show that there was deliberate attempt on the part of the police to play down the incident. Whatever that be, the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that while she was returning from school on 11.6.1995, the first accused along with others restrained her and mounted an attack on her. She narrated in detail what are the acts done by each of them and the injuries suffered by her. She attributes definite overt acts to each of the accused. P.W.2 is the brother of the victim. He also speaks about the incident. He says that he came out hearing the cries of P.W.1. He also says that the fifth accused had beaten the victim. P.W.3 is another witness who speaks about the incident. He was going along the road and he saw P.W.1 being restrained by the accused and she being beaten by
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
8
them.
hospital. It shows the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. That does not show the injuries as spoken to by P.W.1.
9
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
speaks for themselves. It is not the number of injuries that is the criterion, but the question here is what was the true incident. That there were two factions and there was a fight between them is quite evident from the records. That can be discerned from the evidence and also from the narration in Ext.P3 judgment. Reading together these records, there is considerable doubt created in the mind of the court regarding the origin, development and culmination of the incident. Merely because, P.W.1 might have suffered more injuries does not mean that the incident has occurred as spoken to by her. Unless the true version of the incident is before court, it may not be possible to fasten liability on accused person.
10
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
doubt in the mind of the court. The lower court has given reasons as to why the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 cannot be accepted and that the finding cannot be based on their evidence.
incident.
11
Crl.Appeal.28/2006.
This appeal is without merits and it is accordingly
dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sb.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court found the victim's evidence highly exaggerated and contradictory.
Saradha
Narayanan Nair
Devaki Amma
Unnikrishnan
Janaki
Sabjarabarayanan
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
