STATE OF KERALA Vs. KILAKKATHA PARAMBATH SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Thalassery in S. C. No. 32 of 1997, acquitting all the seven accused (respondents herein) charge sheeted in the above case. The charges framed against the accused were as follows:

(2.) PW 1 Shaji, who was injured in the incident gave Ext. P1 FI Statement at 5.30 p.m. while under treatment at Government Hospital, Thalassery. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba investigated the case. PW 1 to 4 were examined as occurrence witnesses. PW 5 is the second witness to Ext. P2 scene mahazar. PW 6 is the Doctor who examined PW 1 as well as the deceased Sathyan at Government Hospital, Thalassery. Ext. P3 is the wound certificate regarding deceased Sathyan and Ext. P4 is the wound certificate regarding PW 1. PW 7 Doctor conducted postmortem examination and Ext. P5 is the postmortem certificate. PW 8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Maloor, who on getting information from the bus crew that two persons are lying near Ayithara bridge with injuries, went to the place and taken them in the police jeep to the Government Hospital, Kuthuparamba. According to the Sub Inspector, from there, the injured persons were removed to a car to the Government Hospital, Thalassery. PW 9 is the Clerk of the Session's Court and PW 10 is a witness to Ext. P10 seizure mahazar by which PW 1 Shaji handed over his dress and some currency to the police. PW 11 is a witness to Exts. P11 and P12 recovery mahazars, who witnessed the recovery at the instance of A1 and A7. PW 12 is the Additional Village Officer, Kandamkunnu who prepared Ext. P13 scene plan. PW 13 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Valapattanam who recorded Ext. P1 FI Statement. PW 14 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Kuthuparamba who registered the FIR. PW 15 is the first investigating officer in this case, who prepared Ext. P2 scene mahazar, Ext. P18 body mahazar of the bus and seized the trip sheet of the bus, Ext. P17 under Ext. P18 mahazar. He arrested A1, A2 and A7. On the basis of the confession statements Exts. P22 and P23, of A1 and A7, the chopper was recovered under Ext. A11 mahazar at the instance of A1 and another chopper was recovered under Ext. P12 mahazar at the instance of A7. He also seized the dress of accused No. 1, 2 and 7 under Exts. P24, P25 and P28 mahazars. PW 16 is the photographer who took photographs of the scene and its negatives are marked as Ext. P27 and P28 series. PW 17 is the photographer who took photographs at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. PW 18 is the Sub Inspector of Dharmadom Police Station who conducted inquest as per the direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalassery and the inquest report is Ext. P31. PW 19 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalassery who took charge of the investigation on 28-06-1994. Defence examined one witness, Dr. T.N. Babu Raveendran as DW 1 to prove Ext. D2 chit to prove that A3 Ashokan has an injury on his foot and according to DW 1, the wound was sutured. He also deposed that entries in Ext. D2 can be seen in Ext. P3 OP Register and the relevant entry is Ext. D3(a).

(3.) BEING an appeal against the order of acquittal, unless the Appellate Court finds that the findings are perverse, the Court will not interfere in the matter. If the view taken by the Sessions Judge is a possible one, even if another view is possible, this Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. However, being the first appeal this Court is bound to reappraise the evidence and find out whether the view taken by the Sessions Judge is a possible one as it is the duty of the Court to see that no innocent person is punished and at the same time that the real culprit should not escape on mere fanciful reasons. The Privy Council as early as in 1934 in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor (1934 PC 227) held, in exercise of the powers of an appellate court, no distinction can be drawn up between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction and no limitations can be placed. But, the High Court should always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as :