The High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner regarding an acquitted accused in a theft case, holding that second revisions against acquittal are not maintainable without strong grounds.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1208 of 2013 was dismissed. No substantive relief granted.
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.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 1208 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRRP 32/2010 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA
CC 1097/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/S:
SREEJA
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O.JAYAPRAKASH, PARAMESWARATH VEETTIL, KUNNAM,
THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.P.ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 UNNI PRADEEP
S/O.SURENDRAN, AMBADIYIL VEETTIL, KIZHAKKUM MURI,
THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP.RENJITH GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
CRL.MC NO. 1208 OF 2013
O R D E R
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2023
The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.519 of 2007 of the Mavelikkara Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was registered on the allegation that, on 24.12.2007, the accused / 2nd respondent snatched her gold chain. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence and consideration of the legal contentions, found the prosecution to have failed in proving commission of offence and consequently acquitted the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Sessions Court. After re-appreciating the evidence, the Sessions Court concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the revision petition. This Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, as affirmed by the Sessions Court.
Having carefully scrutinized the judgments of the trial and revisional courts, I find that both courts to have appreciated the evidence properly and applied the law correctly. The settled legal position is that in appeals against acquittal, there need not be any interference, even if a different view is possible. In the instant
CRL.MC NO. 1208 OF 2013
3
case, instead of appeal, the victim / de facto complainant had preferred a revision, which was also dismissed. The instant case is actually a second revision couched as a Crl.M.C. As such, the
scope for interference is even more limited.
In the result, the Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE
SJ
CRL.MC NO. 1208 OF 2013
4
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1208/2013
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2010 IN
C.C NO.1097/08 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT-1 MAVELIKKARA
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-1 MAVELIKKARA IN
CRL.R.P NO.32/2010 DATED 11.02.2012
ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET IN C.M.P
NO.5237/2008 DATED 17.12.2008 OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-1, MAVELIKKARA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the second revision of an acquittal in a petty theft case where lower courts found evidence inadequate.
Whether the scope for interference is limited when the victim preferred a revision instead of an appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SREEJA
STATE OF KERALA
UNNI PRADEEP
V.G. ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court