[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Angelo Mathew vs Bhaskaran on 9 January, 2026
2026:KER:1416
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 19TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO.928 OF 2007
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2006 IN Crl.A NO.233
OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS/SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT
CASES), THODUPUZHA
IN C.C.NO.241/2003 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDOM
REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
ANGELO MATHEW
VAYALILPURAYIDATHIL, ANAKKARA VILLAGE,
UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.TITUS MANI
SRI.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU)
RESPONDENTS:
1 BHASKARAN
PERATHANATHU HOUSE, PAMPUPARA KARA,
ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
2 SATHEESAN
S/O. BHASKARANPERATHANATHU HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
3 JAYARAJ
S/O. KARUPPAYYA, ESTHEL HOUSE,
PERATHANATHU HOUSE, PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
4 AJAS
S/O. SHEREEF, MANNUPLACKAL HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
2026:KER:1416
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.928 of 2007
-2-
5 SUNNY M.J.
S/O. JOSEPH, MAVELIKKUNNEL HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
6 KURUVILLA
S/O. ABRAHAM, KAVUMKAL HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
7 C.V.LALU
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHARIVUKALA HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
8 THOMAS CHUMMAR
S/O. CHUMMAR, NADUVATHANI HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
9 A.MANI
S/O. AYYAPPAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
10 DWARARAJ
S/O. MUTHUSWAMY, VANIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
11 ISSAC
S/O. VARGHESE, KAKKANATTU HOUSE,
PAMPUPARA KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE.
12 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINU PAUL
SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
SRI SUDHEER G., PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1416
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.928 of 2007
-3-
G. GIRISH, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.928 of 2007
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
ORDER
On 01.12.2025, when this case was taken up for consideration,
the learned counsel for the petitioner reported 'no instructions'.
Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner intimating the
adjournment of the case to this day and informing him that the case
would be decided in his absence, if there is no representation on this
day also. The aforesaid notice to the revision petitioner has been
returned with the endorsement 'not known'.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and the
learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
3. The present revision petition has been filed by the
defacto complainant in C.C.No.241 of 2003 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Nedumkandom. As per the judgment rendered by
the learned Magistrate on 25.07.2006, accused Nos.1 to 7, 13, 14,
16 and 17 in the aforesaid case were found guilty of the commission
2026:KER:1416
of the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 427 and 447
IPC and convicted and sentenced them to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one month each for the offences under Sections
143, 144, 147, 148 and 447, and to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for three months for the offence under Section 427 IPC. In the
appeal preferred by the convicted accused, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, reversed the findings of the learned
Magistrate and acquitted the accused.
4. The Appellate Court, on analysis of the evidence, found
that even the testimony of PW2, the petitioner herein, revealed that
it was not possible to ascertain whether the alleged trespass was
committed upon his property, without conducting a proper
measurement. It was further observed by the Appellate Court by
analysing the evidence of PW2 that the defacto complainant was not
certain as to whether the accused persons committed the alleged
mischief in the portion of the property surrendered to the panchayat
for the construction of the road, or in the patta land, which belonged
to his parents. The aforesaid crime was the offshoot of the act of
2026:KER:1416
certain persons widening a panchayat road. The case records as well
as the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court would reveal that
the evidence adduced by the Trial Court were insufficient to establish
that the alleged act of committing mischief was upon the property of
the petitioner herein. It is for the aforesaid reason that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge disagreed with the findings of the learned
Magistrate and acquitted the accused.
5. On going through the case records, I find no reason to
find fault with the above observation of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge. In the absence of convincing evidence pointing to
the possession of the property concerned by the defacto
complainant, it cannot be said that the accused had committed
trespass over such a property. So also, the offence of mischief as
contemplated under Section 427 IPC, cannot be found against the
accused, unless it is established that they committed the mischief in
the property belonging to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the
reasoning and analogy of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in
the impugned judgment, are perfectly in order. It is not possible for
2026:KER:1416
this Court to interfere with the aforesaid judgment in exercise of the
revisional powers. Needless to say, the revision is devoid of merits.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/09.01.2026
