LALITHA Vs. SARANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The de facto complainant in a warrant case initiated by the police being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal has filed this revision petition.

(2.) Originally there were two accused. Second accused died when the case was pending in the Trial Court. According to the prosecution first accused refused to advance loan of Rs. 500/- sought for by P. W. 1 through exhibit A2 letter dated 9-3-1982 and hence first accused entertained ill will against her. Oh 6-1-1983 at 10 a. m. the two accused jumped over the locked gate of the compound of P. W. 1 and her father P. W. 2 and when hearing the noise P. W. 1 opened the front door they trespassed into the front room. Second accused slapped her on the face and she fell down. First accused with an iron rod hit her four times and snatched away the gold chain from her neck. P. W. 2, who was at that time standing in the southern courtyard of the house heard the commotion and rushed to the scene. P. W. 3, maid servant, who was in the Kitchen also rushed to the scene. First accused with an iron rod hit P. W. 2 on the back and second accused slapped P. W. 3 on the left cheek and kicked her on the abdomen. P. W. 2 went inside, took an iron rod and beat first accused. Hearing the commotion neighbours gathered and accused ran away. The injured were taken to Medical College Hospital, Alleppey. The next day, on receipt of intimation, P. W. 8, H. C. of Police, Alleppey Town North Police Station went to the hospital and at about 11 a. m. recorded Ext. P1 statement of P. W. 1 and registered a case against the two accused. It appears the two accused also sustained injuries in the occurrence and were taken to the same hospital. P. W. 8 recorded the statement of first accused and registered a counter case against P.Ws 1 and 2. S. I. of Police, P. W. 12 continued investigation. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 20-1-1983 when they were discharged from the hospital. C. I. of Police, P. W. 11 verified the investigation and laid the charge.

(3.) Prosecution examined the three injured P.Ws 1 to 3 and four other eye witnesses, P.Ws 4 to 7. Of them, P.Ws 5 to 7, were declared hostile and then allegedly 'given up'. The defence summoned P. W. 5 and examined him as D.W.1. The defence case was that no part of the occurrence had taken place inside the compound or the house of P.Ws 1 and 2, that there was no snatching of the gold chain, that the incident took place in the road outside the compound when first accused was walking along the road and was attacked by P.Ws 1, 2 and others, local people gathered and a clash took place in which various persons were injured. D.W.1 supported the defence version. The Trial Court held that the prosecution version has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the first accused. The acquittal is now challenged.