THANKAMMA JOHNSON Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the defacto complainant against a judgment of acquittal in a prosecution under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. Investigation commenced on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I. statement lodged by PW4, the defacto complainant, on 28.7.2000. The investigation culminated by the final report submitted by the police.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 5 and proved Exts.P1 to P3. The accused denied the prosecution case. He examined himself as DW1 and the Manager of his Bank as DW2. Exts.D1 to D4 were marked.

(3.) PW4 claimed that she is the landlady in respect of a premises leased to the accused. According to her, the portion leased did not include a shed with a sloping roof at the rear of the building leased. It is her contention that the accused, on 21.7.2000, criminally trespassed into the said sloping shed, which was allegedly in the possession of PW4. He allegedly indulged in acts of mischief to demolish and reconstruct the said shed. By such action of his, the accused had committed the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C., it was alleged. PW4 is the landlady. PW2 is a neighbour of PW4, who accompanied PW4 to the premises on 21.7.2000. PW1 was examined as a person who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence. He turned hostile to the prosecution. PW5 is an attester to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW3, Head Constable, had registered Ext.P2 F.I.R. on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I. statement. Ext.P3 scene mahazar was also proved through him.