SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 751

V.K.MOHANAN
John – Appellant
Versus
Shibu Cherian, S/o. Cherian – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:George Zachariah Eruthickel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sooraj T.Elenjickal, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

The court observed that the remedy available to the victim in cases of acquittal is typically through an appeal against the order of conviction. However, due to the recent amendment to the relevant legal provision, which explicitly limits the right to appeal to cases where the order involves acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation, the present appeal filed by the de facto complainant was deemed not maintainable (!) (!) . The court noted that prior to this amendment, such appeals could be entertained in deserving cases, but the current legal framework restricts this right. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the dismissal does not prevent the appellant from pursuing other legal remedies in accordance with the law (!) .


JUDGMENT :-

The appellant is the de facto complainant and CW1 in C.C.No.1719 of 2004 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam. In this appeal, his challenge is against the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. by which the accused therein, who are the respondents herein, are acquitted of all the offences punishable under Sections 114,143,147,148,448,427,506(ii) read with Section 149 of I.P.C.

2. The above calendar case was instituted on receiving the report from the Police after investigation in Crime No.304 of 2003 of the Mulanthuruthy Police Station in which the allegation is that the first accused abetted accused Nos.2 to 14 to scare off CWs.1 to 3 and to force them to sell that property and thus, according to the de facto complainant, A2 to A14 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object, at 7 p.m. on 30.11.2003, they trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and damaged the window glass of the house by throwing stones and bricks and and they tried to damage the front door of the said house and they have partially demolished the compound wall of the said ho









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top