P UDAYAKUMAR Vs. SASIDHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant in C.C.No.366/2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. The complaint was filed under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with section 149 IPC against respondents 2 to 11. In the complaint it is alleged that on 16-1-2000 at 5.15 P.M. respondents 2 to 11 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons as wooden blocks and reapers with a common object to cause grievous hurt the appellant and in furtherance of the common object respondents 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 10 beat the appellant on different parts of his body and respondents 8 to 10 fisted him on different parts of his body and hence they committed the offence. To prove the case, the appellant was examined as PW1 and three other witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW4 and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, respondents 2 to 11 were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they were innocent and the case is foisted against them due to the strained marital relationship between the sister of the appellant and 11th respondent, her husband. After full fledged trial, the trial court found that "the delay of giving complaint to police, the disagreement in the version of PW1 with the documents produced by him and the divergence in the versions offered by PW1 and his witnesses make it difficult to enter into a finding against the accused persons".

(2.) It has come out in evidence that a case as C.C. No.271/99 is pending before the trial court on the complaint of respondents 2 and 6 against the appellant and PW2 for an offence punishable under section 324 IPC. The incident of the above case occurred on the very same day. The trial court found that the documents produced by the appellant do not agree with the injuries alleged to be sustained by him. The alleged incident occurred on 16-1-2000, but he complained to the Commissioner of Police only on 25-1-2000. The trial court after analyzing the evidence found that there was no agreement in the version of the appellant before the court with the averments in the complaint.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment requires no interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.