Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of
the Kerala High Court allowing the revision petition filed by the de-facto
complainant who was allegedly assaulted by the present appellant resulting in
grievous injuries including fracture. According to the complainant the incident took
place on 19.1.1997 about 4.00 P.M. The trial court on consideration of the evidence
directed acquittal. It is to be noted that the accused persons faced trial for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 506(ii) read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'Code'). The trial court analysed
the evidence of the alleged victims PW1 and PW5. The stand of the prosecution
before the trial court was that the evidence of PW5 could be used to corroborate the
evidence of PW1 and merely because the Doctor has opined that the injured could
have sustained injuries by falling from height did not establish the defence version.
The prosecution witness admitted that PW1 sustained injuries due to fall
from a kuthukallu. This was deposed by DW-1, the person, who carried the injured
to the hospital immediately after the occurrence. It was his evidence that the injured
while traveling in his car stated that he had sustained injuries due to the aforesaid
fall. In any event, after analyzing the evidence, the trial court found that the
prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations. Several factors apart from
the aforesaid fact relating to the cause of injury were also noted. The de-fato
complainant filed a revision petition before the High Court questioning the acquittal.
Before the High Court the revision petitioners submitted that the findings of the trial
court that prosecution has got two different versions and there is no proper
justification for not accepting the version as to why PW1 was not taken to the
government hospital amounts to absurdity. The High Court felt that the conclusion
amounted to absurdity without even indicating any detailed reason as to why the
High Court felt that the
matter was to be re-heard. The High Court exercised the revisional jurisdiction and
directed the matter to be heard afresh by setting aside the findings of the courts
below acquitting the accused persons.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the course adopted
by the High Court is not permissible in law. The High Court has not indicated any
reason as to why it considered the conclusions of the trial court to be erroneous by
picking up one or two sentences from the conclusions. The High Court could not
have come to the a conclusion about need for reconsideration. Learned counsel for
the State submitted that the State had a very limited role to play in the revision
petition filed by the de-facto complainant. None appears for the de-facto
complainant respondent No. 2 inspite of service of notice.
We find that the trial court had rightly dealt with the evidence and found
the same to be not worthy of credence. Without indicating any plausible reason to
set aside the order of the Trial Court, the High Court has remitted the matter back
to the court below. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained
and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.
New Delhi, April 20, 2009.