The court upheld the lower court's acquittal based on a detailed evaluation of inconsistent witness testimonies.

O R D E R

The de facto complainant/PW2 in C.C No.887/2002 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi, has filed this revision challenging the acquittal of the accused in the said case as per the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate on 18.02.2006. The offences alleged in the aforesaid case were under Sections 323 , 427 and 451 I.P.C r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that on 23.01.2002 at about 5:30 p.m, the accused (respondents 1 to 4), in furtherance of their common intention, criminally trespassed into the shop of PW2, and inflicted voluntary hurt upon him by beating and kicking. It is further alleged that, as a result of the aforesaid act of the accused, the petitioner lost his gold chain resulting in a loss to the tune of Rs.18,000/-. In connection with the aforesaid incident, the S.I of Police, Njarakkal laid the final report alleging the commission of the offences, as stated above by respondents 1 to 4.

3. In the trial conducted before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PW1 to PW12, and marked five documents as Exts.P1 to P5. From the part of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1, and two documents were marked as Exts.D1 and D2. After evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the offences alleged against the accused. Accordingly, the accused (respondents 1 to 4) were acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, that the petitioner has approached this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW1, PW3, PW6 and PW10 turned hostile to the prosecution and discredited the prosecution story. PW1 even stated that it was PW2 who went out of his shop and fisted the third accused. It was also brought out in the evidence before the Trial Court that, in connection with the physical assault mounted upon the first accused on the same day by the brother of PW2 and three others, C.C No.779/2002 was registered against the brother of PW2 and the other accused, and that they were convicted in the aforesaid case.

6. The learned Magistrate made a detailed evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and found that the testimonies of PW2, PW4 and PW8 regarding the criminal acts attributed against the accused, cannot be relied on since it is marred by inconsistencies. The above aspect has been discussed in paragraph No.33 of the impugned judgment. The learned Magistrate also took note of the civil cases between the parties, and also the pendency of another criminal case registered as C.C No.779/2002 against the brother of PW2 and three others, for physically assaulting the first accused on the same day when the incident in the present case was said to have happened. The reasons stated by the learned Magistrate in paragraph No.33 of the impugned judgment for disbelieving PW2, PW4 and PW8, cannot be said to be perverse or blatantly irregular to invoke revisional powers of this Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C, to unsettle the findings in that judgment. That being so, the challenge in this revision petition can only be termed as unsustainable.

Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

(sd/-)