UNNI ALIAS SURESH Vs. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.R.P. No.84\1999. The revision petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1,2 &4 in C.C.No. 201/995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur. They were charged with the offences punishable under S.452, 323, 324 and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The prosecution allegation is that on 19/6/1995 at 7.00 p.m. the accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the residential building belonging to PW - 1 armed with dangerous weapons and attacked Pw - 1 to PW - 3, as a result of which, PW - 1 to PW - 3 suffered injuries. While accused Nos. 1 and 3 are alleged to have inflicted injuries on P'ws - 1 and 2 with dangerous weapons, accused Nos. 2 and 4 had not allegedly used any weapon. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined pws 1 to 9 and marked Exts.P1 to P5 and identified M.Os 1 and 2. On a consideration of the evidence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case against the accused and accordingly acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the defacto complainant preferred Crl. R.P.No.84\1999 before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur and by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of acquittal and remitted back the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. The order of remand is seriously challenged in this revision.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that the lower court should not have reversed the finding of acquittal on a reappraisal of the evidence. He further contended that the revisional jurisdiction when invoked by a private party can be exercised only in exceptional case. According to him the court below has mis appreciated and misunderstood the evidence in the case.

(3.) At the outset, I must say that the impugned order of the court below is clearly unsustainable. It appears that the learned Sessions judge proceeded on the assumption that the evidence of the injured witnesses should be accepted by the court even if the. evidence is tainted with inconsistencies and improbabilities. No doubt, the court can rely on the evidence of an injured witness to convict an accused without any independent corroboration if the evidence is found to be reliable and acceptable. But the presence of injury" on the person of a witness does not guarantee his truthfulness. The evidence of an injured witness also should be properly scanned or weighed before the evidence is accepted by the Court. The Court is not bound to accept the evidence of injured witnesses if their evidence is found to be, hopelessly contradictory and utterly unreliable. In this case, the Trial Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting the evidence of pws 1 to 3 who are the alleged injured witnesses.