The appellate court's acquittal was valid based on unreliable witness testimonies and procedural delays, confirming the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

O R D E R

The de facto complainant/PW1 in C.C No.466/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment rendered by the Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.A No.576/2005 acquitting the accused in the aforesaid case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.03.2004 at about 11:30 p.m, the accused (respondents 1 to 7 herein) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons and committed rioting by criminally trespassing into the landed property of the de facto complainant, and cutting open a new way through it after causing destructions and loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. It is further alleged that the accused inflicted voluntary hurt upon the de facto complainant and his wife when they tried to intervene.

3. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Punalur Police Station laid the final report before the learned Magistrate alleging the commission of offence under Section 143 , 148, 447, 427 and 323 r/w Section 149 I.P.C. After a full trial with the examination of seven witnesses from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW7, and marking of nine documents as Exts.P1 to P9, and also after considering the defence evidence adduced through the oral testimonies of DW1 and DW2 and the document marked as Ext.D1, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused (respondents 1 to 7) for the commission of offence under Sections 143 , 447 and 427 I.P.C r/w I.P.C. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months each for the offences under and 447 I.P.C, and three months for the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. The accused were further ordered to pay a compensation Rs.25,000/- to PW1. The substantial sentence of imprisonment was directed to run concurrently.

4. In the appeal preferred by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge reversed the findings of the learned Magistrate, and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court, the petitioner/de facto complainant is here before this Court with this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 (accused), and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Appellate Court, after analysing the evidence on record meticulously, took note of the fact that the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 regarding the incident, were totally unreliable due to inconsistencies and incompatibilities. In paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has extensively dealt with the statements tendered by PW1 to PW3 which were marred by contradictions and divergence on material particulars. That apart, the learned Sessions Judge had observed in the impugned judgment that the statements made by the de facto complainant in the plaint and interim application filed before the Civil Court in O.S No.116/2004 on 17.03.2004, were totally against the allegations pertaining to the criminal acts committed by the accused in the night of 16.03.2004. The learned Sessions Judge also considered the delay of two days in lodging the first information statement before the police as a circumstance which defeated the bona fides of the case of the de facto complainant. It is after taking into account all the above facts and circumstances borne out of the evidence on record, that the learned Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is not possible for this Court to unsettle the aforesaid findings of the Appellate Court in this proceedings of revision. The analysis of evidence by the Appellate Court cannot be termed as perverse or in gross violati