Akhil vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9435 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 13TH BHADRA, 1945
                   CRL.REV.PET NO. 1705 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 505/2014 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
            COURT & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR
 CC 15/2014 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH
                              PARAVUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS/ACCUSED:

    1       AKHIL, AGED 22 YEARS
            S/O.SATHEESH, VALAKASSERY HOUSE, VAVAKKAD KARA,
            VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR
    2       RAJESH, AGED 19 YEARS
            S/O.RAVI, THIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTH KARA,
            VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.PRASUN.S
            SRI.PAUL MATHEW PERUMPILLIL


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:

            STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031
            ADV.T.R.RENJTIH, PP
     THIS    CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.1705/2015                           2


                   P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                -------------------------------------------
                     Crl.R.P.No.1705 of 2015
                -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 4th day of September, 2023


                                   ORDER

The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated

09.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.246/2015 in Sessions Case No.505/2014

on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, North

Paravur, by which, an application for discharge is dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, this criminal revision petition is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Annexure-A2 is the petition filed under Article 227 of the

Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the accused in the above case.

It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Annexure-A2

petition:

'1) The offence alleged against accused in the above case are under section 306 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code...

2) The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on 11/11/2012 at the early morning, one Mr. Babu was committed suicide by hanging. It is alleged that a few hours before the suicide the deceased had a scuffle with

the accused in a liquor party at a wedding hall. It is further alleged that the deceased was felt insulted by the assault of accused and because of that mental agony, he had committees suicide. Hence the accused are charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences.

3) On a perusal of the case record and document adduced by the prosecution it can be seen that a primafacia case is not made out against the accused in the case. The ingredients to attract section 107 of Indian penal code is absent in the case. The prosecution documents do not reveal that the accused persons instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing to indicate that the accused persons had no knowledge or intention that the accused was going to commit suicide. Without that knowledge or intention it cannot be said that the accused had either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The sentimental or temperamental nature of a persons is not a ground to fasten criminal liability upon others. As the necessary ingredients to attract the offence under section 306 IPC are conspicuously absent in the case, the accused are entitled for a discharge.

Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to discharged the accused persons in the above case.'

4. The order passed in Annexure-A2 is Annexure-A1. It will

be better to extract the relevant portion of the order dated 09.12.2015

in Crl.M.P.No.246/2015 in S.C.No.505/2014:

'Heard the defence counsel and prosecution in compliance of s.227 of Cr.PC. This court considered the submissions of both sides and documents on record and found that there is sufficient ground for presuming that there is prima facie case is against the accused. In the above circumstances, the contention of the defence counsel is that there is no proximity of link between the allegation and suicide is rejected. In the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed and the case is posted for framing of charge.'

5. I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has

not considered the contention of the revision petitioners in

Annexure-A2 petition while passing Annexure-A1 order. Therefore, I

am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is to be set

aside and the discharge application is to be reconsidered in

accordance to law. I make it clear that the lower court is free to pass

appropriate orders in accordance to law. I am setting aside the

impugned order because it is a non speaking order and it is not an

order adverting the contentions raised by the revision petitioners.

Therefore, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated

09.12.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.246/2015 in S.C.No.505/2014 on the file of

the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, North Paravur is set

aside. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to reconsider

Annexure-A2 discharge petition, after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners and the prosecutor concerned as

expeditiously as possible. The Registry will return the lower court

records forthwith to the trial court.

Sd/-

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sbna/