THIPPEY BABY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 in S.C.No.45 of 2005, on the file of the Sessions Court, Udhagamandalam has preferred this revision against the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused 1 to 4 from the charges under Section 307, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE accused 1 to 3 are brothers. THE fourth accused who is friend of accused 1 to 3 is working as a driver. THEre was a land dispute between the accused 1 to 3 and P.W.1 Thippey Baby with regard to a land measuring about 4 acres and 30 cents and a Civil Suit is also pending. On 16.10.2003 at 1.30p.m.,, when P.W.1 went to the radish field, the accused 1 to 3 came there and the first accused tried to attack P.W.1 on her head with the wooden log and as she warded of with the hands, the attack fell on her left hand and also on her cheek. THEn she lost her teeth and the second accused beat P.W.1 on her right elbow with pick axe (bfhj;J). THE third and fourth accused kicked her with legs on her hips and thigh. As P.W.2, P.W.4 and others rushed to the scene, the accused dropping M.O.1 and M.O.2 ran away from the scene. P.W.2 and P.W.4 brought a jeep and took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital and P.W.3 Doctor examined her and noticed the following injuries:

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shanmughasundaram for the respondents 2 to 5/accused 1 to 4 submitted that reappraisal of evidence is not possible in a case of revision against acquittal. As there was a civil dispute between the parties, there was a possibility of witnesses to depose falsely against the accused. THE learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the trial Court had acquitted the accused, since the medical evidence has not been strengthened by marking X-rays and examining the radiologists. According to the trial Court, there are different versions with regard to the place of occurrence and P.W.4 is an interested witness.