The sufficiency of evidence in proving charges under IPC sections is critical for conviction, highlighting the need for clear identification and supporting documents.

P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, J. …...................................

Crl.R.P.No.927 of 2017 …............................................................. Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 ORDER This revision petition filed by the defacto complainant challenging the judgment passed in CC No.55 of 2004 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 447, 506(1) and 188 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC ' for short) and the judgment in Crl.Appl.No.700 of 2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur confirming the said acquittal.

2. The prosecution case is that on 03.12.2003, at about

08:00 a.m., the accused, 11 in number, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to cause mischief and intimidate PW1, near the house of PWs 1 and 2, situated at a place called Mulayam. Thereafter, they committed rioting and trespassed into the property of PW1, violating the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court and committed mischief by cutting a road through the property of PW1. It is alleged that when PWs1 and 2 tried to prevent the accused, they intimidated them.

3. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, acquitted all the accused of the offences alleged. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant originally filed Crl.R.P.No.95 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur and the said court converted it into an appeal, by renumbering it as Crl.Appl.No.700 of 2011. Later, the said court by judgment dated 23.05.2017, dismissed the appeal.

4. Heard Adv. C.A.Anoop , the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv. Aravind Menon, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 11. Perused the records.

5. The specific case of the prosecution is that, on

03.12.2003, the accused persons together, cut opened a road through the property of PW1 after destroying the cultivation, and by violating a civil court order. It is also its case that after cutting open the road, the accused put rock dust on the road and thereafter, intimidated and abused both PWs 1 and 2. The materials on record show that PW1 and his wife PW2 have been examined to prove the events that transpired on the fateful day, and they have given evidence in tune with the prosecution case. The records also show that in order to prove that the prosecution version is false, the accused have examined DW1 and has marked Exts.D1 to D3 documents. DW1 is the Advocate Commissioner appointed in Ext.D1 case existing between the 4^th accused and PWs 1 and 2. Her evidence, coupled with Ext.D2 report and Ext.D3 sketch, would show that she had visited the site on 29.11.2003 and at that time had found that a road is already existing in the property. She also stated that the road has a width of 9 feet and there was vehicular traffic through it. She further stated that about 16 residents are using the road and there are old boundaries on both sides, demarcating the road. The afore evidence of DW1 thus, cuts the root of the prosecution case and shows that its version that the road was cut opened for the first time on 03.12.2003, is nothing but false.

6. Be that as it may, it is also to be taken note that even though the specific case of the prosecution is that it is by violating an order of injunction passed by a civil court, the accused have committed the act, no orders of injunction have been produced. That apart, it is to be seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that both of them have not identified any of the accused specifically, in the dock during trial. In these circumstances, I do not find any error or