Xxxxxx vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5004 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                   &
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
     WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                          WA NO. 502 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(Crl.) 111/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:

          XXXXXXXXXX
          XXXXXXXXXX

          BY ADV A.K.PREETHA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2     DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PEERMADE ,
          IDUKKI 685531.

    3     STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION,
          VANDIPERIYAR -685533.

    4     ARJUN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O SUNDAR, HAVING PERMANENT
          ADDRESS AT CHURAKKULAM ESTATE LANES, VANDIPERIYAR P.O.,
          PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT



          SR.GP-JUSTIN JACOB




     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.05.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 502 OF 2022
                                2


                             JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The question in focus in this case is essentially whether

the fourth respondent belongs to any of the communities

enumerated as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

2. This issue assumes importance in this case because

the appellant/petitioner, who is the father of the victim

alleged to have been sexually assaulted and murdered by the

fourth respondent, asserts that the afore said respondent

does not belong to any of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe communities and therefore, that the charges under the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 also ought to have been incorporated

against him.

3. The petitioner thus moved this Court and a learned

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, based on the

various materials reflected in the impugned judgment, that

he belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe

community and therefore, that the request for amendment of

the charges are not tenable.

4. We do not propose to speak on the merits of any of WA NO. 502 OF 2022

the dialectical contentions of the parties because we are of

the view that, rather than this Court having adjudicated or

concluded upon the community status of the fourth

respondent, it ought to have been left to the learned Sessions

Judge, before whom the matter is now pending.

5. The record reveals, as is also reflected in the

judgment, that the Investigating Officer appears to have

made an enquiry into the community status of the fourth

respondent, to conclude that he belongs to one of the

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities.

6. We are, however, of the firm view that this opinion of

the officer would not be binding upon the Trial Court and that

it is for the learned Sessions Judge to take an appropriate and

apposite decision on this matter, if and when the

appellant/petitioner makes a request for such purpose, under

the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. In order to pave way for such an opportunity being

available to the appellant/petitioner herein, we deem it

appropriate to vacate all the observations in the judgment

impugned before us; not because we have found against it

conclusively, but so as to ensure that the processes under the

Cr.P.C are implicitly followed.

WA NO. 502 OF 2022

8. Resultantly, we allow this writ appeal, vacating all the

observations of this Court and leaving liberty to the

appellant/petitioner to move the learned Sessions Judge

appropriately, if he is so interested; in which event, the said

Court will consider the application, after following due

procedure and after hearing both sides, thus deciding

whether any amendment to the charges are necessary.

9. We hasten to add that we have not, in any manner,

decided that the amendment of the charges are necessary or

otherwise, and that it is left to be decided by the learned

Sessions Judge, as and when the afore exercise is initiated.

We also make it clear that our judgment may not be

construed by anyone to mean that the trial scheduled on

09.05.2022 is to be deferred or adjourned and that the

learned Sessions Judge will act as per law, taking note of our

observations above.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE stu WA NO. 502 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WA 502/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TO THE KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE COMMISSION DATED 24/02/2022