Important points:
When concurrent findings of facts rendered by the trial court and the appellate court are sought to be set aside in revision, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset factual findings arrived at by the two courts below. It is not open for the revisional court to re-analyse and reinterpret the evidence on record in a case, where the two courts below have come to a probable conclusion

ORDER :

The revision petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.27/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri and the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.198/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, (Ad hoc)-I, Manjeri. The case arose out of a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused 1 and 2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').

2. The prosecution case can be summarized as hereunder:-

The accused are the brothers of the complainant. Their father Karuppan had filed O.S.No.9/2001 before the Sub Court, Manjeri against the accused and others in which the accused filed a written statement on 27.7.2001 alleging that the father has been staying along with the elder daughter and they have been living like husband and wife. It was further alleged that, when the mother saw an illicit relationship between the father and the daughter, she objected to the relationship and then the accused 1 and 2 supported the mother and did not acknowledge the illicit relationship. The complainant is the elder daughter of Karuppan and the accused 1 and 2 are his sons. The complainant and her husband are living happily for about last 25 years and they have been leading a good family life. Their children are well placed and their daughter was married away in the year 2001. The accused 1 and 2 made reckless allegations against the complainant with an intention to lower the reputation of the complainant among the right thinking members of the society. According to the complainant, the allegations raised against the complainant are baseless and per se defamatory.

3. Originally, the case was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri as C.C.No.190/2001. On the appearance of the accused, copies of the relevant records were furnished to them. Particulars of the offence were read over to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri wherein it was numbered as C.C.No.27/2005.

4. During the trial, on the side of the complainant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P3. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They denied the entire circumstances that were put to them. Exts.D1 series and D2 were marked on the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found the accused 1 and 2 guilty and convicted and pronounced sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In case of realisation of fine amount, an amount of Rs.7,000/-was directed to be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused 1 and 2 preferred Crl.Appeal No.198/2006 before the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc)-I, Manjeri. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

6. Heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners, Smt.Bindu Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri.M.S.Breez, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the accused are entitled to protection of the 9th exception to Explanation 4 of Section 499 of the IPC. It is further contended that in Ext.P1 plaint, it is the admitted case of the deceased Karuppan, that there was an issue on account of which he was in animosity with his wife. Thus, it is alleged that the alleged imputation in Ext.P2 can only be a certification of the averment in Ext.P1 plaint. It is further contended that PW3 was an Advocate for the accused in the civil case betw