Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THRESIAMMA, W/O. VARGHESE versus VELAYUDHAN, S/O. RAMAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THRESIAMMA, W/O. VARGHESE v. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. RAMAN - CRL A No. 1748 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 15566 (13 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL A No. 1748 of 2003()

1. THRESIAMMA, W/O. VARGHESE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. RAMAN,
... Respondent

2. MANOHARAN, S/O. RAMAN, -DO- -DO-.

3. MOHANAN, S/O. RAMAN, -DO- -DO-.

4. VIJAYAN,

5. KERALA STATE,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.VEERAVUNNY

For Respondent :SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :13/08/2007

O R D E R

K. Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A.No. 1748 of 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 13th day of August,2007



JUDGMENT

The appellant filed S.T.No.2959/2000 before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva alleging that respondents 1 to 4 had committed an offence punishable under sections 447 and 427 read with section 34 IPC. The trial court after considering the entire evidence found that the appellant has failed to prove the charge levelled against respondents 1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt and hence they were not guilty of offence punishable under sections 447 and 427 read with section 34 IPC. The above finding is challenged in this appeal.

2. The grounds urged in the appeal are as follows:- Firstly, it is contended that the trial court mis-read the evidence of the witnesses and also the documents produced by the appellant. Secondly, it is contended that the contradictions of the evidence of the witnesses alleged to have been found by the trial court are minor in nature and it would not affect the case of the appellant.

3. On considering the contentions raised by the appellant and on going through the evidence of the witnesses once again, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial court requires no interference by this Court. Even the evidence of PW1 would not prove that respondents 1 to 4 had committed any offence to attract section 447 or 427 IPC. That apart, the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 would not show that the 1st respondent had attempted to trespass the property of PW1. The trial court after considering the evidence found that the the evidence adduced bythe appellant was not sufficient to prove the charge levelled against respondents 1 to 4. Hence, the finding of the trial court are on evidence and this Court feels that there is no compelling circumstances or reasons exist to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial court. K.Thankappan, Judge. mn.

K. Thankappan, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A.No. /200
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.