Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Pramod on 8 November, 2024
CRL.A NO. 1350 OF 2007
1
2024:KER:83971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TH
FRIDAY, THE 8 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1350 OF 2007
AGAINST THEJUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2007 IN CC NO.40 OF 2002 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS- I, HARIPAD ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
UNDER SECTION 248(1) Cr.P.C. - CRIME No. 148/2001 OF KANAKAKKUNNU POLICE
STATION
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
1 PRAMOD, S/O HARIDAS,
AMBADIYIL VEEDU, MUTHUKULAM NORTH MURI,, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE.
2 SUDHA, W/O. HARIDAS
AMBADIYIL VEEDU, MUTHUKULAM NORTH MURI,, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE.
3 JAYADAS, S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI
NAMBATTU VEEDU, MUTHUKULAM NORTH MURI,, MUTHUKULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.)
SRI.PRANOY K.KOTTARAM
OTHER PRESENT:
PP-SRI.M.C.ASHI ; SMT.SEENA C.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1350 OF 2007
2
2024:KER:83971
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the State against acquittal of the
accused in C.C.No. 40 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court -I Harippad, vide judgment dated 30.03.2007.
2. The prosecution case was that, on 01.11.2001 at 05.00
p.m., A1 to A3 who are the son, wife, and relative of the defacto
complainant, assaulted him using a stick and wrongfully confined
him in a room. Thus committed offences punishable under
Sections 109, 341, 342, and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. On appearance of the accused before court, charge was
framed against them under Sections 109, 324, 341, 342 r/w
Section 34 of IPC to which all of them pleaded not guilty, and
claimed to be tried. Thereupon, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9
and marked Exts.P1 to P5. On closure of prosecution evidence,
accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They
denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record.
Exts.D1 to D4 contradictions were marked from their side, and no
other defence evidence. On scrutiny of the facts and evidence, and
on hearing the rival contentions from either side, the trial court
CRL.A NO. 1350 OF 2007
2024:KER:83971
acquitted the accused finding that prosecution could not prove their
guilt beyond doubt. Against acquittal of the accused, the
complainant - State has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard learned public prosecutor for the appellant - State,
and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3.
5. PW1 is the father of the 1st accused and the husband of
the 2nd accused. The allegation was that, since PW1 was not
willing to give money, his, son, wife, and a relative, attacked him
and detained him unlawfully. There were no independent witnesses
to support the prosecution case. Though the alleged incident
occurred on 01.11.2001, FIR was registered only on 03.11.2001
with a delay of 3 days. The history of injury stated by PW1 to the
Doctor was that, he fell down in the bathroom. For all these
reasons, the trial court found that the prosecution case was not
believable, and hence the accused were acquitted. On going
through available evidence, this Court also finds no reason to
disturb the impugned judgment of acquittal.
6. The injured - de facto complainant had filed Crl.R.P. No.
2121 of 2007 against acquittal of the accused. That was withdrawn
CRL.A NO. 1350 OF 2007
2024:KER:83971
by him stating that the matter has been settled between himself
and the accused persons, who are his son, wife, and relative. So
also, the impugned judgment of acquittal does not warrant any
interference.
In the result, upholding the impugned judgment of acquittal,
the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
RMV
