SAJU P. Vs. SREEVALSAN P & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1558/2014 is the accused and the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6709/2014 is the complainant in S.T.No.799/2005 on the files of the trial court. The accused was initially convicted and sentenced by the trial court, against which appeal was filed. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.R.P. before this Court. As per order in Crl.R.P.2049/2009, this Court confirmed the conviction and set aside the order of sentence and remitted the matter to the trial court for awarding sentence afresh in accordance with law, in the light of the observations in the said order. Thereafter, DW1 to DW3 were examined and Exts.D1, C1 and C1(a) were marked. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced the accused to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 79,720/-with a default clause for rigorous imprisonment for two months, with a direction that if the fine amount is realized, the entire amount shall be given to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., 1973 Against the said order of sentence, the complainant filed revision petition and the accused filed appeal. The Sessions Court confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court, against which the complainant has filed this Crl.M.C. and the accused has filed this criminal revision petition.

(2.) Heard both sides.

(3.) The contention of the accused is that he paid Rs. 2,80,000/- as per Ext.D1. Ext.D1 was admittedly written by the complainant. However, the complainant contended that the figure '2' was subsequently added by somebody before the figure "80,000/-". The complainant further contended that he received only Rs. 80,000/-. Ext.D1 was sent for expert opinion. The expert opined that it was not possible to express any opinion about the authorship of the questioned writing. However, the expert opined that all the standard items were seen to be freely written with natural variation. The expert was also not examined to prove Exts.C1 and C1(a).