O R D E R

Petitioner is the accused in S.T No.3207/1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy charged with offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. After an elaborate trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A I.P.C and imposed imprisonment. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences, the revision petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Thrissur with a Criminal Appeal No.414/2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the matter afresh and found that the appeal was devoid of any merit. Hence, it was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner has come up in revision.

2. Heard Sri.Wilson Urmese the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.K.Rajeev the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have carefully perused the records and the judgments of the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the courts below wrongly appreciated the evidence to find that the petitioner was guilty of the aforementioned offences. According to him, wrong appreciation of evidence resulted in miscarriage of justice. It has to be borne in mind that in the revisi