This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.3.2004 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta in S.T.No.912 of 2002. The appellant herein was the complainant therein. He filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 223 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/first respondent herein. As per the impugned judgment the first respondent was found not guilty and consequently, acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the appellant herein was that he was a member of Indian Farmers Movement, Moonnilavu Panchayat unit. Pursuant to a dispute between the members of various labour unions regarding the cutting and loading of rubber trees in Thalappalam Panchayat 12 farmers in the said area filed O.P.No.26153 of 2001 before this Court seeking police protection for cutting and loading rubber trees from their respective properties. On the strength of the directions issued by this Court in the said Original Petition steps were taken to cut and remove the rubber trees standing in the property of one Chengazhasseril Sunnykutty Thomas at 7.15 a.m. on 11.1.2002. The petitioners and some other members of the said movement (INFARM) went to the said property. The work started at about 9.30 a.m. and thereupon some labourers assembled there and they tried to cause obstruction. The Deputy Superintendent of Police who was then present at the spot informed the farmers about inability to give police protection for cutting the rubber trees. The union members pelted stones towards the farmers and the police party and pursuant to the same police resorted to lathi charge and accordingly the farmers left the place without cutting and removing the rubber trees. The appellant was taken into custody by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pala and he was taken to Erattupetta police station at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day. After about half an hour he was put in the station lock up. The first respondent/accused who was the then writer of the police station entered into the station lock up and abused the appellant with filthy language and stamped him over the right side of his neck with his right hand. The first respondent thereafter assaulted him with his hands on different parts of his body. The first respondent also threatened him by saying that he would be finished. The complainant had sustained severe body pain and contusion over various parts of his body following the said assault. At the time of the assault by the first respondent some others were also present in the station. Though he filed a complaint before the authorities raising grievances against such assault no action was taken thereof. It was in the said circumstances that he filed the said complaint.
3. The learned Magistrate took sworn statement from the appellant and thereafter the complaint was taken into file as S.T.No.912 of 2002. Copies of all the records were furnished to the first respondent/accused on his appearance on due process. Later, the particulars of offence were read over and explained to the first respondent/accused and he pleaded not guilty. PWs 1 to 4 were examined from the side of the appellant besides marking Exts.P1 to P5 to prove the charge against the first respondent herein. After the closure of the evidence of the appellant herein the accused was questioned under section 313, Cr.P.C. The first respondent/accused submitted that the allegations levelled against him are baseless and that the appellant herein and 10 others were arrested from Kalathukadavu on that day by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pala for committing mischief to police van. He has also stated that in connection with the same, a crime was registered against the appellant and the others and thereafter they were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally. It is his case that the complaint was filed in the said circumstances.
Therefore, he stated that the complaint was a foisted one made with a view to escape from the criminal liability in the other case. The first respondent denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. The first respondent/accused was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 was marked on his side, in defence. The learned Magistrate had, earlier formulated the following points for consideration:-
“(i) Whether the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt upon PW1, as alleged?
(ii) Whether PW1 was originally intimidated by the accused, as alleged?
(iii) What, if any, are the offences proved against the accused?
(iv) Sentence or order?”
After considering the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate found points 1 to 3 against the complainant and consequently, found the accused as not guilty for the offence alleged against him and consequently, acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.. As noticed hereinbefore, this appeal is directed against the said judgment.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. I have already adverted to the case of the appellant/the complainant. As PW1 the appellant deposed that on 11.1.2002 he along with some other members of INFARM went to the rubber estate belonging to Chengazhassery Sunny Thomas situated in Kalathukadavu bhagam with a view to cut and remove the rubber trees. PW1 and PW3, another member of INFARM deposed that at about 9.30 a.m. while they were cutting rubber trees from the estate members of various labour unions came and obstructed the work. They also deposed that on seeing the activities of the members of the labour unions the District Superintendent of Police informed them about his inability to afford adequate protection. They also deposed that police has resorted to lathi charge and the members of the labourers who gathered there pelted stones towards the complainant and police. According to the appellant and PW3 they were taken into custody by the police from the rubber estate and thereafter they were put inside the station lock up at Erattupetta at about 1.45 p.m. on the same day. PW1 further deposed that at about 2 O' clock the first respondent/accused came to the station lock up and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him as aforesaid. PW3 supported the version of PW1. PW3 would also depose that besides assaulting PW1 he was also assaulted by the first respondent/accused. Ext.P4 is the wound certificate issued from Cherupushpam Hospital, Pala. Ext.P1 is the document produced by the appellant claiming to be the medical certificate. To prove the same he got examined PW2, the doctor attached to Cherupushpam Trust Hospital, Pala during the relevant period. PW2 would depose that on 16.1.2002 he examined PWs 1 and 3 and he identified Exts.P1 and P4 as the wound certificates issued by him. PW4 deposed that at about 1.30 p.m. on 11.1.2002 he was also taken to Erattupetta police station.
He would further depose that while he was standing on the east-west verandah of the police station the first respondent/accused entered the station lockup and assaulted PWs 1 and 3 with hands and criminally intimidated them. The first respondent/accused was examined as DW1. He deposed that on 11.1.2002 he was on Station Sentry duty at the police station. Ext.D1 is the Sentry Relief Book of the police station for that particular day. According to him, the appellant, PW3 and PW4 were accused in Crime No.13 of 2002 of Erattupetta police station and they were put in the station lockup only at 5 p.m. on 11.1.2002. As noticed hereinbefore, earlier, after arrest the appellant and PW3 were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally on that day and Ext.P2 is the certified copy of the remand order passed by the Magistrate in Crime No.13 of 2002 which would reveal that the appellant and the other accused were produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally at 10 p.m. on 11.1.2002 and Ext.P5 is the F.I.R. in the said crime. It would reveal that the crime was registered at 4 p.m. on 11.1.2002. Going by the statements in Ext.P5 the accused persons eleven in numbers, including the appellant herein, were arrested from Kalathukadavu and they were taken to the police station at 4 p.m. on 11.1.2002. The entries in Ext.D1 Sentry Relief Book would reveal that the appellant and the other accused were put in the station lockup only at 4 O' clock on 11.1.2002. Going by Ext.P5 they were in fact, taken to the police station only at 4 p.m. on 11.1.2002. The learned Magistrate also found that the appellant herein got no case that Ext.P5 is a fabricated one. The witnesses examined on his side also did not have a case that the police authorities had made some false entries in Ext.D1 register with regard to the detention of the accused persons in Crime No.13 of 2002. Evidently, those circumstances were taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate in arriving at the conclusion that when the documentary evidence contained in Ext.P5 and Ext.D1 would reveal the fact that the appellant and PW3 were brought to the police station only at 4 p.m. and put in the station lockup at 5 p.m., the case of the appellant, though supported by PW3 and PW4 that himself and PW3 and PW4 were assaulted from the station lockup at 2 O' clock could not be believed. The learned Magistrate also found that PWs 1, 3 and 4 are accused in Crime No.13/2002 of Erattupetta police station registered against them and their co-accused pursuant to their arrest for committing mischief to police van. Evidently, they were produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally at 10 p.m. on 11.1.2002 and Ext.P2 is the remand order. Though PW3 deposed that he is not a worker of INFARM he is also an accused in Crime No.13/2002 registered for commission of mischief to the police van on that day in connection with the aforesaid incident. In the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate found that PWs 3 and 4 are interested witnesses and further found that, the said fact by itself is not a reason for disregarding their evidence. True that, they deposed in tune with the version of PW1 and all of them deposed that they were taken to the police station at about 1.30 p.m. on 11.1.2002 and put in the station lockup at 2 O' clock. In the light of the uncontroverted entries in Ext.P5 and Ext.D1 and taking into account the fact that all of them are workers of INFARM and accused in Crime No.13 of 2002 I do not find any reason to hold that the learned Magistrate had erred in finding that the appellant and PWs 1, 3 and 4 were brought to the police station at 4 p.m. on 11.1.2002 and declining to believe their version that they were brought to the police station at 1.30 p.m. and assaulted by the accused/first respondent from the station lockup at 2 O' clock. True that, while being produced before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanjirappally they complained to the effect that they were manhandled by the police. It is evident from Ext.P2 remand order that the learned Magistrate did not record any injuries on their bodies. The evidence of PW2 who examined the appellant and PW3 is to the effect that they were admitted in the hospital on 16.1.2002 with the alleged history of assault. PW2 would also depose that the identification marks of the appellant as well as PW3 were not recorded in Exts.P1 and P4. It is also deposed by PW2 that the time at which he examined them was also not duly recorded therein. He further deposed that neither the appellant nor PW3 disclosed the name of the persons who assaulted them. It is pertinent to note that a perusal of Exts.P1 and P4 certificates would not reveal that the appellant and PW3 had sustained any external injury. During his cross examination PW3 would depose that he knew the name of the accused/the first respondent. Another aspect which would reveal from the oral testimonies of PWs 1, 3 and 4 is that regarding the injury sustained by them they gave exaggerated version. It is taking into account all these circumstances that the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that they are interested witnesses and in the light of the entries in Ext.P5 and Ext.D1 and in the absence of any visible injuries on the body of PW1 it could only be held that the complainant had failed to prove the case against the first respondent/accused beyond any reasonable doubt. At any rate, in the circumstances borne out from the evidence, I do not find any reason to hold that the findings of the learned Magistrate is utterly perverse. There can be no dispute regarding the settled position of law regarding the scope of interference with a judgment of acquittal. If it is found that the conclusion based on the evidence arrived at by the trial court is a plausible view no appellate interference is permissible. So also, in a case where the view is plausible a judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with. I am also of the view that the oral testimonies of PW1, PW3 and PW4 cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion of guilt against the first respondent, in the aforesaid circumstances. I do not find any reason to hold that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence on record in an utter perverse manner or that the findings of the learned Magistrate of the trial court is totally against the weight of the evidence. When that be the case, going by the settled position of law, a judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with invoking the appellate jurisdiction. In the result, the judgment under appeal calls for no appellate interference and hence it is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
TKS Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge