O R D E R

Dated this the 25th day of October, 2022 This revision petition has been directed against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.216/2022 dated 18th November, 2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha (for short, 'the appellate court') setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence in CC No.423/1997 dated 9th July, 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Cherthala (for short, 'the trial court').

2. PW2, the injured, is the revision petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the accused Nos.1 to 4. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as PW1 and PW2 are at present no more.

3. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC. 4. The prosecution case in short is that on 18/2/1996 at

6.30 a.m, the accused criminally trespassed into the Kalarickal Aswathi purayidam which was in the possession of PW1 and PW2, assaulted PW1 and PW2 with weapons such as crow bar and stick causing serious injuries.

5. At the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D2(a) were marked. The trial court after evaluating the evidence found the accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of IPC. They were convicted and sentenced for the said offences. In appeal, the appellate court set aside the findings of the trial court and it was found that the accused were not guilty for the offences charged against them. Accordingly, they were acquitted. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court, PW2 has preferred this revision.

6. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was continuously absent, Adv. Navjyoth S. has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. I place on record the appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

8. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as well as PW5 to prove the incident and to fix the culpability on the accused. PW1 and PW2 are the injured. PW5 is the Doctor who treated PW1 immediately after the incident and issued Exts.P3 and P4 wound certificates. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 and Exts.P3 and P4 would prove the injury sustained by PW1 and PW2. The crucial question is whether it was the accused who caused injury to PW1 and PW2. To prove the same also, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The only independent witness who was examined as PW6 did not support the prosecution case.

9. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 have been discussed in detail in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment of the appellate court. It has come out in evidence that there is longstanding enmity between PW1 and PW2 and the accused. There are several cases and police complaints between them. The appellate court found that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 at the box and in the statement given by them to the Doctor, PW5.

The place of occurrence stated in Exts.P3 and P4 is the house situated on the north of Maruthorvattom temple. But, as per the prosecution case, the incident took place at Kalarickal Aswathi Purayidam. When PW2 was examined, she answered that the place of occurrence stated by her to the Doctor was correct. Thus, there is material contradiction in the place of occurrence shown in Exts.P3 and P4 and the place of occurrence deposed by PW1 and PW2 at the box. Similarly, it has come out in evidence that PW1 and PW2 were known to the accused. However, the names of the accused or even the identity of the accused were not at all disclosed to the Doctor or recorded in Exts.P3 and P4. Similarly, regarding the weapon used by the first accused, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with that of Ext.P1 statement given to the police. The appellate court found