KAMALA E.P. Vs. UMMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment dtd. 27/7/2017 in S.C.No.539/2011 and S.C.No.453/2016 on the files of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri is under challenge in this revision petition filed at the instance of the de facto complainant.

(2.) S.C.No.539/2011 was a case charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Malappuram in respect of the offences under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 506(i), 323, 324 and 354 I.P.C read with Sec. 149 I.P.C and Sec. 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST POA Act. S.C.No.453/2016 was a private complaint filed by the petitioner herein against 15 accused in S.C.No.539/2011 and two others in respect of the same incident, alleging the commission of offence under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 506(i), 323, 324 and 354 I.P.C read with Sec. 149 I.P.C and Sec. 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST POA Act. However, the learned Special Judge, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses, took cognizance of the offences under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 506(i) and 323 I.P.C read with Sec. 149 I.P.C only in the above complaint case.

(3.) Both these cases were clubbed together and tried in a single trial by the learned Special Judge who recorded the evidence in S.C.No.539/2011. 18 witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW18 and 41 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P41. One material object was identified as MO1. On the part of the accused, twelve contradictions were marked as Exts.D1 to D12 and three other documents were marked as Exts.D13 to D15. After hearing both sides and evaluating the aforesaid evidence, the learned Special Judge arrived at the finding that the accused, except A9 and A15 who were absconding, were not guilty of the offence alleged, and acquitted them under Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. It is the aforesaid judgment which is under challenge in this revision filed by the de facto complainant.