AMBUJAM Vs. AYYASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus : -The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr. P. C. for the offence under section 498a IPC as against all the accused and as against A1 u/s. 506 (ii) IPC. Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. During trial on the prosecution side, P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 were marked. On the side of the accused no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Ultimately the trial court acquitted the accused.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus : even though on the prosecution side the witnesses deposed in support of the prosecution case without valid reasons, the lower court simply acquitted the accused as if the case was not proved by the prosecution. The lower Court was not justified in holding that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 are not believable for the reason that they are related to one another and in matters of this nature. only relatives would be knowing about the details and hence the lower Court was not justified in acquitting the accused on that ground. P. W. 1 being the victim narrated the harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused. P. Ws. 2 to 4 also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1, but unjustifiably the lower Court rejected their evidence. The husband of P. W. 1 indulged in torturing the wife which caused mental and physical torture; owing to such cruelty she could not conceive and give birth to any child. The lower Court acquitted the accused on flimsy ground that the place of occurrence of the offence of criminal intimidation was not proved. In F. I. R, P. W. 1 indicated that the occurrence took place in front of sankari R. D. O. Office and in such a case, there is no doubt about the place of occurrence. Even then, the lower Court wrongly interpreted the evidence and acquitted the accused. Accordingly, P. W. 1 the revision petitioner herein prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court and for passing suitable orders.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Government advocate (Crl. side) and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.