According to the companyplainant the incident took place on 19.1.1997 about 4.00 P.M. The trial companyrt on companysideration of the evidence directed acquittal.
The stand of the prosecution 2 before the trial companyrt was that the evidence of PW5 companyld be used to companyroborate the evidence of PW1 and merely because the Doctor has opined that the injured companyld have sustained injuries by falling from height did number establish the defence version.
This was deposed by DW 1, the person, who carried the injured to the hospital immediately after the occurrence.
Several factors apart from the aforesaid fact relating to the cause of injury were also numbered.
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 companyrt found that the prosecution has number been able to establish the accusations.
The High Court exercised the revisional jurisdiction and directed the matter to be heard afresh by setting aside the findings of the companyrts below acquitting the accused persons.
The prosecution witness admitted that PW1 sustained injuries due to fall from a kuthukallu.
The de fato companyplainant 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 companyrt that prosecution has got two different versions and there is numberproper justification for number accepting the version as to why PW1 was number taken to the government hospital amounts to absurdity.
The trial companyrt analysed the evidence of the alleged victims PW1 and PW5.
It is to be numbered that the accused persons faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 506 ii read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short Code .
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 companyplainant who was allegedly assaulted by the present appellant resulting in grievous injuries including fracture.
