De-facto complainant challenged the acquittal for offences under IPC Sections 447, 427, 294(b), and 506(i). The High Court affirmed the lower court's rejection of evidence due to contradictions and delay in lodging the FIR, dismissing the revision petition.
Revision petition stands dismissed; acquittal of accused is upheld.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3141 of 2010 ( )
CC 112/2006 of J.M.F.C., PATTAMBI
REVISION PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
SHAHUL HAMEED,49 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED, PALAKKAL HOUSE, NULOORKARA DESOM,KALLADIPATTA, AMSOM.
BY ADVS.SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & STATE:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
R,R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.P.K PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.R.P. No.3141 of 2010
Dated this the 30th day of September 2016
O R D E R
The de-facto complainant in C.C. No.112 of 2006 on
the files of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Pattambi filed this revision petition challenging the judgment of the court below acquitting the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2.30 p.m., the accused in furtherance of their common
intention cut a mango tree situated in the property of the
Crl.R.P.3141/2010
: 2 :
second accused. The said mango tree was very close to the compound wall of PW1. The mango tree fell over the compound wall of PW1 and thereby, PW1 sustained damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. PW1 requested the accused to re-construct the compound wall. However, the first accused caught hold of the neck of PW1 and talked to him in filthy language. PW1was also pushed down by him.
Crl.R.P.3141/2010
: 3 :
material aspects. The court below further found that no convincing reason was assigned by PW1 or PW2 as to why PW2 happened to be present in the house of PW1 at the relevant time. Having gone through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, I am satisfied that their evidence is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. That apart, PW1 had set the law into motion after 13 days of the incident. No convincing explanation or material is available to substantiate the delay in setting the law into motion. For the above said reasons, the court below rightly rejected the evidence of PW1 and PW2. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the court below acquitting the accused, as the
Crl.R.P.3141/2010
: 4 :
judgment of the court below does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness warranting
interference by this court.
In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/30.9.2016
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the acquittal of accused persons can be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahul Hameed
T.P. Hamsa
Muthaleef
Basheer
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
