The revisional court rejected the victim's challenge to the Sessions Court's acquittal of five accused, holding that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent compelling reasons to disturb the acquittal.
The criminal revision petition filed by the victim father of the deceased was dismissed.
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 DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 260 OF 2005
SC 185/1998 OF IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/WITNESS NO.2:
GOPALAN EZHUTHASSAN S/O.AYYAPPAN EZHUTHASSAN, CHITTETHUPARAMBU,, MUTHUVARA, PUZHAKKAL, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.V.DEVAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED:
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:2:-
5 M.A.KUNJU MOHAMMED @ KUNJUMON S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, III/44, CHITTATTUKARA,, (WEST PARUR BRIDGE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6 K.SAKTHIRAJAN @ SAKTHI S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, NO.7, AMBIK NAGAR,, THURIYALUR, COIMBATORE-34, TAMIL NADU
BY ADVS.ANIL K.MUHAMED R.ANIL DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS GEORGE PHILIP PUBLIC PROSECUTOR B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI G SUDHEER-PP SR.S. MANU, DSG
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:3:-
O R D E R
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2022
This criminal revision has been preferred by the victim (the
father of the deceased) challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (for short, the court below) in SC.No.185/1998 dated 29th October, 2005.
436 and 460 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.
The 1st accused Sri. C.K. Jayakrishnan was working as a sergeant in the Central for Air Borne Systems (CABS), Indian Air Force (IAF), Bangalore during 1990-91. He is the eldest son of Sri. Krishnan Ezhuthassan, Chittathparambil House, Muthuvara Village in Thrissur district. The second accused Sri.T.Sivasankara Pillai was a sergeant and a colleague of the accused No.1 in CABS, IAF, Bangalore. The third accused Sri.J.Raveendran Nair
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:4:-
was Junior Warrant Officer and the fifth accused
Sri.K.Sakthirajan was a sergeant in IAF, Banglore during the above period. The fourth accused Sri.M.A.Kunumuhammed @ Kunjumon was a driver attached to Ayyappa Travels, Banglore where car CAZ 2674 of A3 was running as a tourist taxi. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were colleagues and close associates.
to by Gopalan Ezhuthassan and Sankara Narayanan. Because of that reason, elder people intervened and partition had to be
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:5:-
effected ignoring the will document. This was the beginning of the enmity among the brothers more particularly between Krishnan Ezhuthassan and Gopalan Ezhuthassan.
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:6:-
Shajikumar in the southern end room of the said dwelling house. Their father Gopalan Ezhuthassan was sleeping in the middle room and mother Smt.Lakashmy Bai and younger brother Prajithkumar were sleeping in the western room of the building. This building was a tiled one having no ceiling or thutt. There were entrances to the middle room from the said three rooms. There was also an outer door to the eastern courtyard from the middle room. On the eastern side of the building, the public road from Muthuvara to Kuttoor lies in north-south direction.
were sleeping, the clothes worn by them and the beds and cots on which they were sleeping caught fire simultaneously. They woke up, cried aloud and rushed to the middle room with fire on their body. Hearing their hue and cry, the other inmates of that house woke up. Their father immediately opened the outer door leading to eastern courtyard, through which Ajithkumar and Shajikumar went out and some how or other they managed to extinguish the fire caught on their body. Their father put off the main switch suspecting that the fire broke out due to electric short circuit. Hearing the hue and cry, neighbours rushed there
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:7:-
and extinguished the fire in the rooms pouring water. Ajithkumar and Shajikumar who sustained burn injuries were taken to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur in an autorickshaw.
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:8:-
gave First Information Statement to the Sub Inspector there on the same day. On the basis of that statement, Crime No.36/91 of that police station was registered for the offence u/s 436 IPC. On getting information, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam took up investigation of the case on the same day. As directed by him, the Sub Inspector who registered the case went to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur on that day itself and recorded the statement of Shajikumar. Since Ajithkumar was seriously injured and anesthesia was administered to him, his statement could not be recorded on that day. However, the Sub Inspector on 25.3.1991 recorded his statement at the Medical College Hospital. Ajithkumar was taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam for better treatment and later he succumbed to his burn injuries at that hospital at 4.30 am on 5.4.1991.
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:9:-
the records, discharged the accused No.4. Charge was framed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW68 and marked Exts.P1 to P63. On the side of defence, DW1 to DW4 were examined and Exts.D1 to D33 were marked. Exts.C1 and C2 were marked as court exhibits. After full fledged trial, the court below found that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 beyond reasonable doubt and they were acquitted. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the victim who was examined as PW2, (the father of the deceased) preferred this revision.
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:10:-
cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. That is to say the circumstances should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. It is equally settled that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:11:-
favour of the accused. An order of acquittal cannot be interfered
with as matter of course. An order of acquittal can only be interfered with when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. Only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The Apex Court in K.Prakashan v. P.K.Surenderan [(2008) 1 SCC 258] has held that if two views are possible, the appellate court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible to be taken.
Crl.R.P.No.260/2005
-:12:-
Bhardwarj and others [(2015) 2 SCC 721], the Apex Court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence.
I have carefully gone through the entire records, evidence, proceedings and judgment of the court below. I find no impropriety or illegality therein warranting interference under the exercise of revisional powers vested with this court. The Crl.R.P fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in a criminal revision.
Whether the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. permits reappreciation of evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Prakashan v. P. K. SurenderanReferred¶14
K.Prakashan v. P.K.Surenderan [(2008) 1 SCC 258] · Who else cites this
Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwaj and othersReferred¶15
Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwarj and others [(2015) 2 SCC 721] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopalan Ezhuthassan
State of Kerala
C.K. Jayakrishnan Babu
J. Sivasankara Pillai
J. Raveendran Nair
M.A. Kunju Mohammed
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
