SHABNA, W/O SIDHIQUE Vs. STATE OF KERALA, IBRAHIM, S/O MUHAMMED, ANSAR, S/O MUHAMMAD AND SALAM, S/O MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) De facto complainant in C.C. No. 1517 of 2005 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodungallur is aggrieved by the acquittal of Respondents 2 to 4/accused 1 to 3 by the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.R.P. No. 114 of 2008. On the information given by the Petitioner, a case was registered against Respondents 2 to 4 for offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted final report. Case is that on 20.10.2005 at about 3.30 p.m. Respondents 2 to 4 attempted to strangulate Petitioner following a dispute regarding partition of family property and Petitioner attempted to commit suicide by cutting her vein with a broken glass piece. Prosecution was not successful in proving the case against Respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Magistrate acquitted them. Petitioner challenged that acquittal in Crl.R.P. No. 114 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge agreed with the view taken by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision. Hence this proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learned Counsel contended that evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 has not been properly appreciated by the courts below and that there is miscarriage of justice which this Court is required to set right invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

(2.) Even in the matter of a revision from an order of acquittal what the revisional Court is concerned with is only whether there is any gross miscarriage of justice arising from violation of any fundamental principle of law or whether such miscarriage has resulted from a perverse finding or appreciation of the materials on record. The revisional Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence as in the case of appeal from acquittal or conviction. The scope of revision itself is limited as aforesaid. When it comes to a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code challenging acquittal of trial court as confirmed in revision, this Court is required to consider whether the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court is to be exercised in respect of the proceedings of the courts below or the judgment/order under challenge.

(3.) In the case on hand, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and marked Exts. P1 to P4. P.W. 1/CW 2 is the husband of Petitioner/de facto complainant and admittedly is not a witness to the (alleged) incident. He would say that Petitioner/P.W. 4 told him about the incident at the hospital after she regained conscience. P.W. 2 is the servant in the family house. She did not support the prosecution and instead, stated that Petitioner and P.W. 1 got into a quarrel and P.W. 1 assaulted Petitioner. Petitioner thereon rushed to the room on the first floor and locked it from inside. Later Petitioner tried to commit suicide. P.W. 2 was declared hostile by the prosecution. It is not as if the evidence of a hostile witness is to be ignored outright. Acceptable portion of evidence of a hostile witness can be taken into account. P.W. 6 is the brother of P.W. 1 and indisputably, has no direct information about the incident. P.W. 5 is the witness examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident. He had not seen anything special at the place of occurrence. He did not see blood anywhere at the place of occurrence.