Kerala High Court
Cherian vs Ravi on 2 November, 2024
2024:KER:81550
Crl.R.P.No.1954 of 2013
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA,
1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1954 OF 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRA NO.581 OF
2011 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1802 OF
2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
(VICTIM):
CHERIAN
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. KURIAKO, EDAVAZHIKAL VEETTIL,
CHOTTANIKKARA DESOM, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 RAVI
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, THAIMUTTATHU VEETIL,
CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 UNNI
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, THAIMUTTATHU VEETIL,
CHOTTANIKKARA, KUREEKKAD VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2024:KER:81550
Crl.R.P.No.1954 of 2013
:2:
3 RATHISH @ RANJITH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. RAVI, THAIMUTTATHU VEETIL, CHOTTANIKKARA,
KUREEKKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 SOORYANARAYANAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE,
KANAYANNUR P.O., CHOTTANIKKARA, PIN-682312.
5 STATE OF KERALA
(CRIME NO. 336/2005 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE
STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.ASOKAN
SRI.P.B.AJOY
SRI.GEORGE C.VARGHESE
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR ADUKKATH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81550
Crl.R.P.No.1954 of 2013
:3:
P.G.AJITHKUMAR, J.
------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1954 of 2013
------------------------------------
Dated this the 02nd day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
The de-facto complainant in C.C.No.1802/2006
on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Ernakulam is in revision. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were
the accused. After trial, the Trial Court acquitted them of
all the offences charged against them namely, offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 447 read
with Section 34 IPC. The revision petitioner filed criminal
appeal number 581/2011 invoking the proviso to Section
372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the
appeal the petitioner has filed C.M.P No.3468(A)/2010
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C seeking to add one Sri.Surya
Narayanan as additional accused. As per the judgment
dated 26.03.2013 the Appellate Court dismissed the
2024:KER:81550
appeal as well as the petition. Aggrieved thereby the
petitioner preferred this revision petition under Section
397 read with 401 of the Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents
No.1 to 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The prosecution was lunched with the
following allegations:-
4. PW1, de-facto complainant along with
members of his family was residing on rent in the house
of one Sri.Radhakrishanan. The 1 st respondent is his
brother. The petitioner was asked to vacate the
tenanted premises. He did not oblige. Therefore the 1 st
respondent along with respondents No.2 and 3 reached
the rented house and manhandled PW1 at that house.
When intervened PWs 2 to 4 who are the son, daughter
and wife of PW1 were also manhandled. The petitioner
has a further case that along with respondent Nos.1 to 3
2024:KER:81550
the 4th respondent Surya Narayanan and two others also
joined to attack.
5. Before the Trial Court PWs 1 to 9 were
examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked to prove the
accusation against respondents No. 1 to 3. No defence
evidence except Ext.D1 was let in by the respondent
Nos.1 to 3. The Trial Court after considering the said
evidence concluded that the evidence was totally
insufficient to convict the respondents No. 1 to 3. Before
the Appellate Court the petitioner contended that the
evidence rendered by the prosecution sufficiently proved
the commission of offence not only by respondents 1 to 3
but also by the 4th respondent. Accordingly the
petitioner sought to set aside the order of acquittal and
remand the matter by allowing to implead the 4 th
respondent as an additional accused. The Appellate
Court re-appreciated the evidence and held that the
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 was insufficient to establish guilt
2024:KER:81550
against respondents 1 to 3. It was also held that there
was nothing in evidence to establish complicity of
respondent No.4 with the offences. Accordingly, the
appeal as well as the petition were dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for respondents
No.1 to 4 would submit at the outset that this revision
petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel places
reliance on [Joseph Stephen and Others v.
Santhanasamy and others (AIR 2022 SC 670)] in
support of that contention. In the view of the learned
counsel, having availed the remedy of appeal against the
judgment of the Trial Court acquitting respondent Nos. 1
to 3, no revision could be entertained. In Joseph
Stephen one of the question was that:-
"ii) In a case where the victim has a right of
appeal against the order of acquittal, now as
provided under S.372 Cr.P.C and the victim has
not availed such a remedy and has not preferred
the appeal, whether the revision application is
2024:KER:81550
required to be entertained at the instance of the
party / victim instead of preferring an appeal?"
7. The Trial Court while convicted the
accused for few offences, acquitted them of the offences
under Sections 307, 506(ii) of the IPC. The victims
preferred an appeal against the acquittal and accused
preferred appeal against conviction for some of the
offences. The Sessions Court after considering both
appeals together rendered a judgment of acquittal in
respect of all the offences. The victims preferred a
revision petition before the High Court. In that factual
situation the Apex Court held that the victim had a
remedy of appeal against the acquittal by the Sessions
Court and as the victim resorted to the remedy of
revision instead of filing appeal, the same was not
maintainable.
8. The facts of this case are quite dissimilar
to that of the said case. Here respondents No.1 to 3
2024:KER:81550
were acquitted by the Trial Court of all the offences. The
said order of acquittal was confirmed in the appeal filed
invoking to proviso Sections 372 of the Code. Against
the judgment of the Appellate Court no remedy of a
further appeal is available. Therefore the proposition of
law laid down by the Apex Court in Joseph Stephen
cannot apply to this case. Therefore, I am not accepting
the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 1
to 4 concerning maintainability of the revision petition.
9. PWs 1 to 3 deposed about the incident.
It is seen that their versions regarding the incident are
not consistent. PW2, the son deposed that as soon as
the 1st accused entered the house lights were switched
off which discredity the evidence of the occurrence
witnesses concerning the overt acts. Alleging assault
occurred thereafter. Infirmity notice by the doctor is
tenderness on the body of PWs 1 to 3. In the absence of
consistency in the versions of PWs 1 to 4 regarding the
2024:KER:81550
incident, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court
hesitated to place reliance on their evidence. As stated,
PW1 is the father of PWs 2 and 3 and husband of PW4.
When the relative witness alone are available and the
Courts below concurrently held that their evidence is
insufficient to inspire confidence, this Court sitting in
revision is not expected to interfered with the findings
resulting in the acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 3.
10. The power of revision under Section 401 of
the Code is not wide and exhaustive. The High Court in the
exercise of the powers of revision cannot re-appreciate
evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its
consideration of the evidence is confined to find out the
legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned
before it. When the findings rendered by the courts below
are well supported by evidence on record and cannot be said
to be perverse in any way, the High Court is not expected to
interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below
2024:KER:81550
while exercising revisional jurisdiction. [See: State of
Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri
(1999) 2 SCC 452; Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v.
Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC 123; Kishan
Rao v. Shankargouda (2018) 8 SCC 165].
11. In view of the law laid down in the above
said decisions, no interference to the impugned judgment
of acquittal and also the order dismissing CMP No.3468
(A)/2010 is warranted.
Hence revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G.AJITHKUMAR,
JUDGE
Raj.
