G. MURALEEDHARAN Vs. BINU, MADANVILATHEKKETHIL VEEDU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C. No. 863 of 2001 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakkara, and the first respondent is the first accused therein. The accused faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 9.30 a.m. on 05.09.2001, he trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant, and assaulted him and his son.

(2.) The first accused entered appearance before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him. As the second accused remained consistently absent, the case against him was split up and refiled. Initially, the police filed final report in this case against the first accused, and against one Sunil Kumar. On an application filed by the defacto complainant before this Court, further investigation in the crime,was ordered, and after such further investigation, the Police submitted supplementary final report against the revision petitioner, and against one Radhakrishan as second accused. The case against the said Radhakrishnan as the second accused now stands split up and refiled. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P5 documents in the trial court. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence in defence, but Exts.D1 to D7 were proved on the side of the accused. The definite defence of the accused is that this is a false case foisted by the complainant due to previous enmity in connection with the pending civil disputes. All incriminating circumstances were denied by the accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found that the whole prosecution is suspicious in view of the various other litigations pending between the parties, and that the case stands not properly and legally proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate acquitted the first accused by judgment dated 01.10.2005. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in this revision.