B SANTHOSH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Crl.R.C. is filed against the order of acquittal, dated 23.4.2008 passed in C.C.No.113 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund, acquitting respondents 2 to 5 herein, of the offences under Sections 448 and 506 (Part 2) IPC.

(2.) THE skeleton of the prosecution case is as follows: On 30.8.2006 at about 17.30 hours, when P.W.1 Santhosh and P.W.2 Rathinaammal, the mother of Dr.Mohan were in the house bearing Door No.67, Bluemountain School Road, at that time, respondents 2 to 5/accused broke open the Door and trespassed into the house and made criminal intimidation to them to vacate the house, otherwise, they will kill them. Immediately, P.W.1 intimated the same to his father P.W.3 Bhojan and P.W.1 and his grandmother went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint at about 20.30 hours and registered a case in Crime No.973 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 (Part 2) IPC and prepared Ex.P-3 FIR and inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-4 rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses P.W.6 Samsudeen and P.W.8 Dasan and he examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.9 investigating officer arrested the respondents 2 to 5 (A-1 to A-4) and remanded them to judicial custody. P.W.9 concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused for the said offences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5/A1 to A4 submitted that there was a civil dispute in respect of the house in question. But on a perusal of P.Ws.1 and 2's evidence, it is seen that they are not the eye-witnesses, and their cross-examination has been properly considered by the trial Court, which came to the correct conclusion. He further submitted that P.W.3 is not the eye-witness. The trial Court considered the oral and documentary evidence and came to the correct conclusion that merely because of a civil dispute between A1/second respondent's husband and one Dr.Mohan, who is none other than the junior paternal uncle of P.W.1 and brother of P.W.3 and son of P.W.2, false case has been foisted against the accused, and that has been considered by the trial Court. He further submitted that the findings of the trial Court are not perverse and there is no illegality or infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. He further contended that the powers of the Revisional Court is very limited and hence, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.