Kerala High Court
Mahesh vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1985 OF 2024
CRIME NO.16/2012 OF PAMPA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.146 OF 2020 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANNI
...........................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
MAHESH, AGED 30 YEARS
KATTUKUNNIL (H), ATTATHODE P.O.,
TRIVENI VILLAGE, PERUNADU VILLAGE,
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 662.
BY ADV AJAI BABU
RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 GOPI, AGED 52 YEARS
MOOZHIKKAL HOUSE, ATTATHODU PADINJAREKKARA COLONY,
PERUNADU MURI, PERUNADU VILLAGE,
PATHANATHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 711.
RENJITH T.R. (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC 1985/2024
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
......................................................
Crl.M.C.No.1985 of 2024
...................................................
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.146/2020 on the files of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, which arose out of Crime
No.16/2012 of Pampa Police Station. Though he was arrayed as the
second accused in C.C.No.628/2012 before the said court, prior to the
commencement of the trial, petitioner absconded, and therefore, the case
against him was split up while the trial against the remaining three
accused proceeded. By judgment dated 02.03.2020, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the remaining three accused. Petitioner, who claims
to stand on the same footing as those acquitted, claims the benefit of
the acquittal of the co-accused.
2. According to the prosecution, on 24.02.2012 at 7 p.m., accused had, due
to a prior enmity with the de facto complainant and with the common
intention trespassed into his house with dangerous weapons and after
restraining him brutally assaulted the de facto complainant with an iron
rod and stick and also caused mischief by destroying the utensils and
caused a loss of Rs.15,000/-; and thereby committed the offences under
Sections 341, 452, 323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
3. Sri.Ajai Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contended that though the petitioner had not participated in the trial
along with the other accused, the findings rendered in the judgment of
acquittal of the co-accused clearly reveals that the substratum of the
prosecution case against the petitioner has been destroyed and therefore
the continuance of the proceedings is a waste of judicial time.
4. Sri.Renjith T.R., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,
submitted that the findings rendered by the learned Magistrate while
acquitting the co-accused are all matters rendered on the basis of
evidence adduced in the said case, and the same cannot be attracted in
the trial against the petitioner and hence the petitioner ought to be
tried.
5. On a consideration of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the
judgment of acquittal of the co-accused, it is noticed that PW1, who was
the injured person, had deposed that he was attacked at 9 p.m. while
the prosecution case was that the incident happened at 7 p.m. The
learned Magistrate specifically observed that, apart from all the ocular
witness cited by the prosecution, being totally ignorant of the alleged
occurrence and failed to support the prosecution case, the testimony of
PW1 itself was replete with discrepancies and disparities. The court
found that the evidence of the PW1 failed to inspire the confidence of
the court with regard to the reliability of the prosecution case especially
without any independent corroboration.
6. On an appreciation of the contentions advanced and on a reading of
Annexure-A3 judgment, it is evident that since the injured witness PW1
himself had spoken contrary to the prosecution case and the court had
clearly observed that he had failed to inspire the confidence of the court
regarding the reliability of the case without independent corroboration,
the same has caused erosion in the prosecution case. I am convinced
that the substratum of the prosecution case has been destroyed by virtue
of the acquittal of the co-accused.
7. In such circumstances, since no purpose would be served by continuing
the prosecution against the petitioner, I am of the view that benefit of
the acquittal of the co-accused ought to be extended to the petitioner.
8. Hence the proceeding against the petitioner in C.C.No.146/2020 on the
files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni, arising out of
Crime No.16/2012 of Pampa Police Station, is hereby quashed.
The Crl.M.C.is allowed as above.
sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AMV/22/05/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
DATED 25.02.2012 IN CRIME NO. 16/2012 OF THE
PAMBA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
25.03.2012 SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO. 16/2012 OF
THE PAMBA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.3.2020 IN
CC NO. 628/2012 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RANNI.
TRUE COPY
