Inconsistent testimony among witnesses undermines the credibility of prosecution evidence, justifying trial court's acquittal.

O R D E R

~~~~~~~

Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in S.T.No.391/2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Sulthan Bathery. He filed the complaint against the 2nd respondent accusing offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC . The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Meenangadi under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) Accordingly, a case was registered as Crime No.210/1999. After completing the investigation, final report accusing offence under Section 323 was submitted. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process to the 2nd respondent.

2. In response to the process, the 2nd respondent entered appearance and pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence was read over and explained. Therefore, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 5 were examined. The First Information Statement was marked as Ext.P1. After closing the evidence, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent denied the incriminating evidence. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding that the prosecution evidence is not believable. It was further found that there is delay of more than one month in filing the complaint. Consequently, the 2nd respondent was acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Assailing the judgment of acquittal, this revision petition was preferred.

3. I have heard Adv. Smt. C.M.Charishma, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The revision petitioner, who was examined as PW1, would depose that the 2nd respondent beat him with hands. As a result, he fell down. Thereupon, he was kicked. PW2, the brother of the revision petitioner, would depose that hearing the hue and cry he rushed to the spot and found PW1 lying on the ground. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent beat and fisted PW1.

PW4, an independent witness, didn't support the prosecution. So, he was declared hostile. PW5, another independent witness would depose that he found the 2nd respondent beating the revision petitioner with hands and umbrella. PW5 intervened and separated the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

5. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW1 that he was beaten with an umbrella or he was fisted as deposed by PWs 2 and 5. According to PW1, when he was beaten with hand, he fell down. Thereafter he was kicked by the 2nd respondent. PW5 has no case that when the revision petitioner was beaten with hand or umbrella he fell down. In the above circumstance, I find that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 is not consistent. The trial court cannot be found fault with in finding against the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that wound certificate was produced before the court but it was not marked and that the wound certificate would corroborate with the evidence of PW1. Since the said document was not marked for reasons not known, I find no merit in the submission. Going by the evidence of PW3, the medical officer, the case of the revision petitioner was that he was assaulted by hitting with umbrella, beating with hands and kicking. None of the occurrence witness has a case of hit with umbrella. Each witness has a different story. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 being inconsistent and mutually contradictory, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal as there is no error, illegality or impropriety committed by the trial court in acquitting the 2nd respondent on appreciation of evidence. Trial court had given good reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence which in my opinion is not anyway vitiated. Revision petition is devoid of merit.

In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed.

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

ps/3/1