CHANDRAN Vs. KUITTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner who set the criminal law in motion alleging that he was severely battered by respondents 1 to 4 because he thwarted the attempt of the third respondent to manufacture illicit liquor now complains of denial of justice at the final stage of the litigation in as much as the unmethodical approach and indifferent attitude of, and non- compliance with statutory provisions by the police, the prosecutor and the trial court have given respondents 1 to 4 an unmeritted acquittal.

(2.) On 23.1.2004 the revision petitioner, his father in-law and brother in law sustained injuries when they were allegedly attacked with metal pipe and wooden reapers by respondents 1 to 4 who did not like the revision petitioner's destroying the wash the third respondent had kept for manufacturing illicit liquor. He lost the sight of his left eye. His father in-law and brother in-law also sustained some injuries.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 4 were charged with having committed the offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. The prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and got marked five documents as Exts P1 to P5 and two material objects as MO1 and MO2. PW1 and PW2, father in-law and brother in-law respectively of the revision petitioner, though admitted having sustained injuries, did not depose to the involvement of respondents 1 to 4 in the incident. The revision petitioner, who was examined as PW3, gave evidence in support of the prosecution case. Still the learned Magistrate found respondents 1 to 4 not guilty of the offences mainly for the reason that the doctors who examined and treated the injured were not examined as witnesses at the trial. The order of acquittal is challenged in this revision petition.