Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

TOMY AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Decided
20 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 39 · 2009 INSC 561

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 40

2

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 complainant who was allegedly assaulted by the present appellant resulting ingrievous injuries including fracture. According to the complainant the incident took place on 19.1.1997 about 4.00 P.M. The trial court on consideration of the evidence directed acquittal. It is to be noted that the accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 506(ii} read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'Code'). The trial court analysed the evidence of the alleged victims PW1 and PW5. The stand of the prosecution before the trial court was that the evidence of PW5 could be used to corroborate the evidence of PW1 and merely because the Doctor has opined that the injured could have sustained injuries by falling from height did not establish the defence version. 2. The prosecution witness admitted that PW1 sustained injuries due to fall from a kuthukallu. This was deposed by OW- 1, the person, who carried the injured to the hospital immediately after the occurrence. 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 court found that the prosecution has not establish the accusations. Several factors apart A fact relating to the cause of injury were also complainant filed a revision petition before questioning the acquittal. Before the High Court petitioners submitted that the findings of the trial prosecution has got two different versions and there B justification for not accepting the version as to why taken to the government hospital amounts to High Court felt that the conclusion amounted to even indicating any detailed reason as to why that the matter was to be re-heard. The High c the revisional jurisdiction and directed the afresh by setting aside the findings of the acquitting the accused persons.

pp. 40–41

3

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the the High Court is not permissible in law. The D indicated any reason as to why it considered the trial court to be erroneous by picking up sentences from the conclusions. The High Court come to the a conclusion about need for Learned counsel for the State submitted that E very limited role to play in the revision petition complainant. None appears for the de-facto respondent No. 2 inspite of service of notice. the trial court had rightly dealt with the F found the same to be not worthy of credence. any plausible reason to set aside the order the High Court has remitted the matter back In these circumstances, the impugned order sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal G Appeal allowed.

p. 41