Santha Kumari vs State Of Kerala

Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J

Both these revision petitions filed against the acquittal arise out of a case and counter case.

One Mrs. Santhakumari is the accused in C.C.NO.461/2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur. The de-facto complainant in the said case is one Mrs. Kumari. The said Kumari is the accused in C.C.No.270/2003 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur and the de-facto complainant therein is Shanthakumari who is the accused in C.C.No.461/2004. The offences alleged in C.C.No.461/2004 are under Sections 341, 323 and 355 of IPC. The offences alleged in C.C.NO.270/2003 are under Sections 447, 341 and 326 of IPC.

The prosecution allegation in C.C.No.461/2004 is that on 29.12.2008 at 7 am the accused therein wrongfully restrained the de-facto complainant and voluntarily caused hurt to her by beating with hands and a broom. The prosecution allegation in C.C.No.270/2003 is that on 27.12.02 at 7.30 am the accused trespassed into the residential compound of the de-facto complainant and wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused grievous hurt to her by beating with an iron pipe.

In C.C.No.461/2004 eight witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW8 and five documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 broom was identified. In C.C.No.270/2003, nine witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9 and five documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P5 and MO1 iron pipe was identified. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged in both the cases beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused in both cases were acquitted. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the acquittal in C.C. No.270/2003, the defacto complaint therein has preferred Crl.R.P.No.2686/2007 and aggrieved by the acquittal in C.C.No.461/2004 the defacto complainant has preferred Crl.R.P.164/2009.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor Smt.Maya M.N.

It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C was to confer power upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re-appreciation of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and others (2004(7) SCC 659) has held that while exercising the revisional powers under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to find out if there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the trial court and the appellate court warranting interference and it is not open to the High Court to exercise the revisional power as the second appellate forum. In Shlok Bhardwaj v. Runika Bhardwarj and others [(2015) 2 SCC 721), it was held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence.

Since there are concurrent findings of the two courts below, this Court would be circumspect in invoking the revisional powers under Sections 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is only if the decision rendered by the two courts below can be said to be either perverse, arbitrary or capricious, this Court can invoke such powers. I have carefully gone through the entire records, evidence, proceedings and the judgments of the two courts below. I find no impropriety or illegality therein warranting interference under the exercise of revisional powers vested with the courts.

In  the  result,  both  the  criminal  revision  petitions  are dismissed.