Kerala High Court
Velmurugan vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.REV.PET NO. 383 OF 2024
CRIME NO.488/2018 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2024 IN SC NO.538 OF
2019 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & I ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
VELMURUGAN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.VELUCHAMI, 4TH COLONY, KOZHINJAMPARA,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678555
BY ADV
V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV
SRI. M. P. PRASANTH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 383 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the
third accused in Crime No.488/2018 of Kozhinjampara
Police Station, Palakkad, under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
the prayer herein is to quash order in Crl.M.P.
No.1437/2024 in S.C. No.538/2019 on the files of the First
Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The prosecution allegation in this case is that:
accused Nos.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common
intention to commit murder of a newly born child of the
second accused, on 12.04.2018 at 8.30 pm, committed
murder of said new born child of second accused at the
house bearing No.16/285 situated at fourth cent colony at
Kozhippara, Vadakarappathi Village of Chittur Taluk
belonging to the first accused by smothering the child by
putting a cloth on its face and sqeezing the neck of the
child, since the newly born child found to be a girl child.
Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 buried the body of the
child under the coconut tree on the east of the above
house without informing the natives and relatives.
Further, the accused caused disappearance of the
evidence of commission of murder with intention of
screen themselves from legal punishment. Thus
prosecution alleges that accused Nos.1 to 3 have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. A joint application for discharge was filed by the
accused Nos.1 to 3. Now, the third accused alone was
challenging the order and the learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that no offence under Section
302 IPC would attract against the third accused and the
allegation is that he caused disappearance of evidence
and an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
On perusal of the order impugned, the learned
Sessions Judge considered the plea of discharge in detail
and found that, it is difficult to hold that the accused
deserve discharge and it was also found that the trial
court could not hold the third accused had no liability for
the death of the child at the initial stage. Thus, it is
discernible that a well considered order was passed by
the trial court in negativing the plea of discharge. In the
said circumstances, the order impugned does not require
any interference. The trial court is at liberty to go with
trial by framing charge on hearing the accused including,
the petitioner.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
BR
