Pradeep @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 15670 Ker

Kerala High Court

Pradeep @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2024

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                     &
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
          Thursday, the 6th day of June 2024 / 16th Jyaishta, 1946
                            CRL.A NO.117 OF 2017

        SC NO.1017/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3:

     PRADEEP @ KANNAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
     S/O.BALAN, KONAKKATTIL HOUSE,
     VILANGANTHODU DESOM, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE,
     THRISSUR DISTRICT.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

     STATE OF KERALA
     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
     ERNAKULAM-682031.


     This Criminal appeal coming on for orders upon perusing the appeal
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.R.ANIL R,B.RAMAN PILLAI
(SR.)(R-260),M.SUNILKUMAR,SUJESH MENON V.B.(S-1613),T.ANIL KUMAR,THOMAS
ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL),THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT,MAHESH BHANU S.,RESSIL
LONAN and of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent,the Court passed the
following:




                                                                     P.T.O.
                          P.B.SURESH KUMAR & M.B.SNEHALATHA , JJ.
                              -----------------------------------------------
                                 Crl.A.Nos.117 & 127 OF 2017
                              -----------------------------------------------
                              Dated this the 6th day of June, 2024
                                               ORDER

After pronouncing the judgment, it was noticed that the

sentence "Ext.P25 statement of the victim recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence." in paragraph 30 of the

judgment is incomplete inasmuch as the words "Since the

prosecution failed to prove the cause of death of the victim" were

omitted to be typed at the beginning of the sentence. The said error

needs to be corrected suo motu.

It is, therefore, ordered that the sentence aforesaid will

stand corrected as " Since the prosecution failed to prove the cause

of death of the victim, Ext.P25 statement of the victim recorded

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence."

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE.

06-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar