S. Hussain v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **CRL.A.No.1970 OF 2005** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 104/1990 DATED 31-08-2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,NEDUMANGAD** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.L.P. 655/2005 DATED 09-11-2005 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:** **S.HUSSAIN, KALLUVARAMBU THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, POOVATUR P.O. NEDUMANGAD.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.** - **2 MR.PRADEEP KUMAR, INSPECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM.** - **3 MR.RAJENDRAN, INSPECTOR, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **4 MR.PRABHAKARAN, INSPECTOR, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 MR.SOMAN, INSPECTOR, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT, VAZUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.** 2 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 |**6**|**MR.BALAKRISHNAN,**| |---|---| ||**SEPOY,**| ||**CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT,**| ||**VAZHUTHACUAD,**| ||**TRIVANDRUM.**| |**7**|**MR.SIVADASAN,**| ||**SEPOY,**| ||**CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT,**| ||**VAZHUTHACUAD,**| ||**TRIVANDRUM.**| ||**R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**| ||**R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM**| ||**R2-3, R5-7 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR**| ||**R4 BY ADV. SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR**| ## **SRI.P.K.BABU, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-122020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.** **==> picture [307 x 54] intentionally omitted <==** ## **J U D G M E N T** Appellant is the complainant in S.T. No.104 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram district. It is a private complaint filed by the appellant alleging offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506(ii) and 384 read with 34 of I.P.C. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant is working as a car driver. On 13.7.90 at about 4 P.M., while the complainant was walking through the public road at Koppathunada bus stop, a white ambassador car and another jeep belong to the Customs Department stopped in front of them. The first accused was sitting in the jeep and had shouted to the complainant and asked him to get inside the vehicle. Immediately the complainant informed them as to why he has to get inside the vehicle. Immediately the second accused shouted and 4 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 stated to him to get inside the jeep peaceably without making anything. The accused and others were tried to caught hold of the complainant by force and there was a puzzle between them. When the complainant and his wife cried aloud, nearby people assembled and questioned the acts of the accused. Immediately the first accused pointed a pistol against the complainant and threatened that he would do away the life of the complainant and under fear and by force, the accused took the complainant into their jeep. The first accused had beaten the complainant on the various parts of his body and the second accused caught the complainant's head in between his life and right thigh and had beaten on the left ear and head due to which blood came out. Contusions were present on his chest, forehead and face. The third accused had beaten on the face of the complainant and fisted on his neck. When the complainant cried loudly, the fourth accused slapped 2-3 times on the left side buttocks and the fifth and the sixth accused jointly caught hold of the mouth of the complainant and forcibly inserted a white towel on his mouth. When the people assembled and surrounded the vehicles, they left from the scene. On the way to custom office, the accused 5 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 manhandled the complainant in the jeep. When the jeep reached at the Customs Preventive and Intelligence Unit, Vazhuthacaud, A5 and 6 forcibly took the complainant outside the jeep and dragged him to the office with the help of the other accused. In the office also the first accused had beaten the complainant and directed to remove his clothes. The second accused questioned the complainant with regard to the alleged gold haul and when the complainant negatived, they have further beaten the complainant and he became un-conscious. When the complainant felt the coolness of ice pieces placed on his forehead, he became conscious and could see a doctor from the Medical College Hospital. In the next day morning, the complainant noticed the presence of ink on his left thumb and when the matter was asked to the fifth accused, he was told him that they have tested as to whether the complainant was conscious or not. The complainant came to know that a statement was recorded by the accused and the complainant's left hand thumb impression was put on it. He has given a petition to the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad on 14.07.1990 for which no action was taken. The reason of these act is that on 13.07.1990, Asharaf, 6 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 Shafi and Sajad were taken into custody by the accused and they have confessed the name of the complainant to them. In connection with the petition filed by the complainant against the first accused and others, departmental actions were taken against and those persons were on enimical terms with the complainant and he was falsely implicated in the case. When the complainant was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, his statement was recorded and direction was given to treat him at the General Hospital, Ernakulam. Thus the accused have committed the above said offences. 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 323, 324, 506 (ii) read with 34 of I.P.C. and issued summons for the accused. The accused entered appearance. Meanwhile, the 5[th] accused died. 4. To substantiate the case the complainant examined PW1 to PW4 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of framing charge. Ext.P1 to P19 were marked on the side of the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined and marked on the side of defence. D1 to D9 were also marked. 5. After hearing both side, the lower court framed charge under Section 323, 342, 506(ii) read with 34 of 7 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 IPC. Thereafter, the witnesses were recalled and cross examined again. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. After going through the evidence and documents the trial court found that, the accused is not guilty and the accused was acquitted. Aggrieved by the acquittal order, this criminal appeal is file. 7. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent Nos.2,5 and 7. It is reported that respondent 3 & 6 is no more. I heard the counsel for the 4[th] respondent also. 8. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erred in concluding that the prosecution is not maintainable in the absence of notice under Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act. The counsel submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Baby C.C. and** **Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Cochin and** **Another (2020 (3) KHC 499,** no notice under Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act is necessary. The counsel also submitted that there is adequate oral and documentary evidence to prove that the accused committed the offence under Sections 342, 323 and 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 of 8 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 the IPC. According to the counsel, the trial court appreciated the evidence in an improper manner and there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the trial court. The counsel submitted that the complainant was brutally attacked by the party respondents, who are the accused in this case and therefore, they should be punished accordingly. 9. The counsel for the accused supported the judgment. The counsel submitted that the trial court considered all oral and documentary evidence and came to a conclusion that the accused is not guilty. The counsel submitted that this is an appeal against acquittal and this Court may not interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial court. 10. The point for consideration in this case is whether the judgment dated 31.8.2005 of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Nedumangad is justified or not. 11. This case has got a long history. The alleged incident in this case happened in 1990. Now 30 years elapsed. Originally, when the learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the offence, the accused approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C. 1145/1991 for quashing the 9 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 proceedings. The same was dismissed by this Court with an observation that the question whether sanction is necessary for the prosecution will be considered by the magistrate after hearing both sides. Thereafter, an application was filed before the lower court regarding the maintainability of the case on the ground that the complaint is bad for want of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C and notice under Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act. The trial court dismissed that petition. The accused challenged the said order before this Court by filing Crl.R.P.416/1992. This Court set aside the above order and thereby remitted the matter again to the lower court for consideration as to whether notice as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is necessary in this proceedings. Thereafter, an application was filed by the accused regarding the maintainability of the case again. That petition was also dismissed by the lower court. The accused again challenged that order before this Court by filing Crl.R.P. Nos.182/1992 and 30/1993 before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court allowed Crl.R.Ps. by holding that notice under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act is required to maintain the complaint. 10 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 The complainant taken up the matter before this Court by filing Crl. R.P.475/1993 against the order passed by the Sessions Court. This Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court and directed to dispose the complaint uninfluenced by any of the observation contained in the said order. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, the accused had taken up the matter before the Apex Court also. The accused had subsequently withdrawn that matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed that appeal as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the points taken in the appeal before the lower court. Accordingly, this case was considered. As far as the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is concerned, the trial court found that no sanction is necessary. But as far as the notice under Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act is concerned, the trial court found that the same is necessary and without the same, the complaint is not maintainable. But in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Baby C.C.'s** case(supra), I think that point is not sustainable. 12. As far as the case on merit, the lower court considered the same in point No.2 of the impugned judgment which is extracted hereunder. 11 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 “ 16. The learned counsel for the accused have argued that there is no bonafides in the allegations made by the complainant to the effect that the accused unlawfully restrained the complainant and manhandled him brutally. It is argued that immediately after the arrest of the complainant, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram wherein he has not given any complaint against the accused alleging ill treatment. It is also argued that the complainant has not given any complaint to Dw2, the head of the team who arrested the accused, taken his statement under section 108 of the Customs Act and forwarded him to the Magistrate. It is also argued that though the complainant has now deposed before the court that the accused threatened him in giving complaint to the Magistrate, the same is not bonafidely done as he has no case in the complaint that the accused had threatened him. I do find that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is sustainable. Though the complainant has obtained two opportunities initially for making complaints of ill treatment before Dw2 and before the Magistrate who remanded him, he has not availed those opportunities. Hence the deposition now made by the complainant regarding non-giving a statement of ill treatment in the hands of the accused is without any basis and made only for the purpose of suiting his vexatious allegations. 17. It is also pertinent to note that after detaining the complainant in judicial custody in Sub Jail at Thirvananthapuram, he was produced before the Magistrate concerned at Ernakulam on 16.7.1990. He has given Ext.P2 statement before the Magistrate at Ernakulam stating illtreatment in custody and that too in the hands of the accused. Even prior to that he was in jail during 14[th] and 15[th] of July, 1990. The complainant has no case that he has complained the illtreatment and sought for treatment in a hospital to the jail authorities during the period of detention in Sub Jail, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also relevant to note that while taking statement as Ext.P2, the learned Magistrate (Special Court of Economic Offences) has noted any injury, contusions or even abrasions in the body of PW1. Even after taking Ext.P2 statement the learned Magistrate has not passed any order for giving treatment to the complainant in a hospital. These factors would certainly affect the case of the complainant that the accused had unlawfully restrained him and manhandled him brutally either at the place of the alleged arrest at Koppathunada, or Thekkada or in the Office of the Customs Preventive Intelligence Unit at 12 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 Vazhuthacaud. 18. The learned counsel for the accused has also argued by relying on Ext.P3 certificate allegedly issued by a doctor at General Hospital, Ernakulam to the complainant that the same was fabricated and was produced only for the purpose of making his false version. Though Ext.P3 chit is marked through the examination of PW1, the same was not proved either by examining the doctor who issued the same nor through other cogent and convincing materials. I have perused Ext.P3 chit allegedly issued by the doctor in the General Hospital, Ernakulam. There is no seal or signature available in the same. The complainant could know the doctor who treated him in the General Hospital at Ernakulam. He could take steps for the examination of the doctor to prove Ext.P3 allegedly issued by him. The complainant has not taken any pain to prove Ext.P3 to show that he was treated in the General Hospital while in judicial custody in the Jail at Ernakulam. Besides there must be records available in the Jail, Ernakulam to show that the complainant obtained treatment from General Hospital for any injuries allegedly inflicted by the accused. The complainant has not even taken any steps to examine the sub jail authorities to show that he was taken treatment during the period of detention undergone by him in the jail at Ernakulam. This would also affect the case of the complainant. 19. Learned counsel for the accused have vehemently argued that there is inconsistent versions in the complaint and in evidence of the witnesses regarding the place of occurrence. It is argued that the complainant has given Ext.D5 letter to the Collector of Customs dated 5.8.1990 in which the place of occurrence is stated to be the public road at Thekkada, Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram. It is argued that the complainant has specifically stated in the complaint and has given evidence through himself and through other witnesses that the place of occurrence is in the public road at Koppathunada bus stop very near to Thekkada-Vembayam. PW1 has deposed that the distance between KoppathunadaThekkada is having ¼ kilometer. PW3 who allegedly seen the incident has deposed the distance between the two places is half kilometer. Hence, it is come out through the evidence of the witnesses and through documents that there is substantial difference regarding the place at which he was allegedly taken custody by the accused. The place of occurrence is an important factor regarding the proof of the allegations made by the complainant. When the complainant himself has no consistent case regarding the place of occurrence, needless to observe that the case of the complainant will be much affected. 13 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 20. The learned counsel for the accused have also argued that though DW2, the Superintendent who headed the team is the case investigated in which the complainant is an accused, the complainant had not arrayed him in the present proceedings for the reasons best known to him only. In the complaint, the presence of DW2 in the team in which the accused are involved for the alleged illegal arrest is not disclosed. But PW1 has deposed at the time of examination that when he was walking through the public road and reached at Koppathunada bus stop with his wife, a car and jeep stopped beside him and DW2 shouted him and asked him to get inside the vehicle. The presence of DW2 in the team is admitted by the complainant. DW2, the Superintendent has given Ext.D6 summons to the complainant for his appearance and arrested him as per Ext.P11 arrest memo. PW2 another co-accused with the complainant in Ext.P1 case is also arrested by giving Ext.P11 (a) arrest memo. Ext.P9 statement of the complainant was recorded at the instance of DW2 through the handwriting of A4. DW2 had forwarded the complainant to the Magistrate concerned and has headed in the entire investigation process of Ext.P1 case. While doing all these acts and despite the allegation that DW2 came at Koppathunada bus stop and asked him to get inside the vehicle, the reason for avoiding him in the array of accused is not either disclosed by the complainant in the complaint or in the deposition. A strenuous effort has been taken by PW1 at the time of examination that DW2 has not made by illegal acts against him. At this juncture it is pertinent to note that the accused are the subordinate officers of DW2 and they could act only under the directions of DW2. If anything done illegally by the accused in a team headed by DW2, necessarily liability would also attached to DW2 as well. In such a situation absence of arraying DW2 in the array of accused would cast some doubt in the mind of the court regarding the genuineness of the allegations put forth by the complainant in the present complaint. 21. The definite case advanced by the complainant is that DW2 has not done anything illegally. From Ext.P9, it can be seen that the statement under Section 108 is recorded at the instance of DW2. Personal matters of PW1 is available in Ext.P9 statement. How the accused could know the personal matters of the complainant stated in Ext.P9 is not explained by PW1. Hence it can only be presumed that Ext.P9 was given by the complainant voluntarily at a time when he was conscious. The fact that the complainant appeared in pursuance of summons before DW2 is deposed by DW2. The fact of illegal arrest and manhandlement to the complainant by the accused has strongly 14 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 denied by DW2. When the complainant has ratified the actions of DW2, necessarily the deposition made by DW2 is to be believed at least to the extent that the complainant appeared before him in pursuance of summons and that there was no illegal arrest and physical torture. 22. The learned counsel for the accused have brought me to the inconsistencies in the statement given by the complainant before the Magistrate (Ext.P2), the present complaint and his deposition. According to him the presence of wife at the place of occurrence is not stated by him in Ext.P2. The alleged dragging of the complainant through the footsteps of the office of the Preventive Intelligence Unit at Vazhuthacaud is not stated by him in Ext.P2. It is also stated in Ext.D2 that he came to understand that he was in Customs Office, Vazhuthacaud at the time when he open his eyes. But the complainant has stated and deposed regarding the alleged incident happened till he was taken to the Customs Office at Vazhuthacaud. These two aspects would not tally each other. If the case of the complainant is taken for consideration, the above said inconsistent versions would certainly affect the case of the complainant. 23. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant had earlier found guilty in a similar offence as per Ext.D1 case in which he had paid fine. According to the learned counsel for the complainant that he was again directed to impose fine in the present case by the Collector of Customs though he was acquitted in Ext.P1 case. It is argued that the complainant has initiated this proceedings only for getting opportunities to retract from Ext.P9 statement admitting the guilt. I do not find that argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is having force. 24. The learned counsel for the accused have also argued that the motive behind the incident is stated to be that the complainant had earlier preferred complaint against the accused and departmental actions were taken against them. According to him the accused were not involved in the earlier investigation in Ext.D1 case and at that the complainant is not preferred any complaint in which departmental actions were taken. DW2 has also deposed that no departmental action were taken against the accused. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued relying on Tamal Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh (2003 Crl.L.J.3070) that the failure of the prosecution to prove motive is not fatal in a case where there is other ocular reliable evidence is available. The case on hand is something different as the complainant himself has pleaded and deposed regarding the motive of the accused in the 15 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 commission of the acts. When the complainant himself has stated a motive necessarily, the same is to be proved by him. Absolutely there is no evidence available to prove the motive of the accused for the commission of the acts. 25. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the complainant has given statement under Section 202 enquiry that the incident was seen by one Chellappan Pillai, Aliyar Kunju and Thulasi. According to him none of the witnesses were examined in this case by the complainant to prove the incident. The complainant had examined PWs 2 to 4 to prove the occurrence. PW2 is a co-accused along with the complainant in Ext.P1 case in which he was found guilty. PW2 has deposed that he has not either preferred an appeal or deposited the fine amount ordered in Ext.P1 case. It is to be noted that the complainant was implicated in Ext.P1 case only on the basis of the statement given by PW2 to the effect that he has obtained the gold biscuit from the complainant. The evidence of PW2 is not at all believable for the purpose of proving the case put forth by the complainant. The evidence of PW2 is not at all believable for the purpose of proving the case put forth by the complainant. Coming to the question of the evidence of Pws 3 and 4, there is inconsistencies in their version and that their evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The persons who allegedly seen the incident was either cited to prove the incident and the persons who have not stated to be seen the incident were examined by the complainant. The above said aspect would also affect the case of the prosecution. On an over all analysis of the entire matter on record, I do find that the complainant has not established offences under sections 342, 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. 26. The complainant has a specific case that the first accused pointed out a pistol and caused him fear of death. Pointing pistol by the accused and causing fear of death is not deposed by all the witnesses of the complainant. Besides Dw1 was examined by the accused to show that during the relevant period, the accused were not supplied with any arms. Ext.D10 Arms Issue Register produced by Dw2 would show this aspect. As it is proved by the accused that no pistol is given by the department for their official purpose, the allegation made by the complainant to the effect that the accused pointed out pistol and caused him fear of death is only an incorrect version. There is absolutely no evidence available to find that the accused have committed offence under section 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. 27. At the time of hearing on the question of framing charge, the learned counsel on both sides have pointed out that the case in question is to 16 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 be tried as a warrant trial proceedings and the case was numbered only as an S.T. It is argued that the case ought have been numbered as C.C., instead of S.T. As the matter was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this aspect was not brought to the notice. At the fag end of the case, a request is made on the part of both sides to number the case as C.C. As per order dated 7.5.2005, this court observed that though the case was numbered as S.T., trial will be conducted in accordance with warrant trial proceedings and that there is no need to convert the case as C.C. I have followed the procedure prescribed for warrant trial proceedings in this matter even though the case is numbered S.T. 28. On going through the above discussion, I do find that the prosecution has not established offences under section 342, 323, 506 (ii) r/w sec.34 I.P.C.” 13. This is an appeal against acquittal. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal against acquittal is considered by the Apex Court in several decisions. Once, an accused is acquitted by the trial court, the presumption of innocence is strengthened. 14. I see no reason to interfere with the above finding of fact by the trial court. The trial court considered each and every aspect of the case and came to a conclusion that the accused are entitled benefit of doubt. This Court is sitting in appeal against the acquittal. Once the court below acquitted an accused, it is now settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened. The Apex Court in **Sampath Babso Kale and another v. State of Maharashtra AER 2019 SC 1852 and in** 17 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 ## **Chandrappa & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka (2007 (4) SC 415)** considered this matter. The relevant portion of the judgment in **Sampath’s** case (supra) in which **Chandrappa's** (supra) case is also considered, is extracted hereunder: “7. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. This court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors.v. State of Karnataka laid down the following principles:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, CRL.A.No.2001 OF 2005 14 restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless 18 Crl.Appeal No.1970/2005 he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 15. Bearing in mind, the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, I have to consider this case. I see no reason to interfere with the finding of fact by the trial court. The trial court after scanning the entire oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accused is not guilty for the offences in which they were charged. In such circumstances, I think, there is nothing to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. Therefore, this Crl.Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 31.8.2005 in S.T. No. 104/1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Nedumangad. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** Lu/al/-