Kerala High Court
Ponnamma @ Sosamma vs State Of Kerala on 5 September, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2024:KER:67371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 14TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 7188 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1107/2016 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2024 IN SC NO.78
OF 2017 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT/
COMMERCIAL COURT, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
PONNAMMA @ SOSAMMA
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O.YOHANNAN, ABHILASH BHAVANAM, PALLIYARA,
MULAVANA CHERRY, MULAVANA P.O,
KOLLAM - 691503
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
Crl.M.C. No. 7188 of 2024 2
2024:KER:67371
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNDARA POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691501
BY ADV.
SMT. SREEJA V (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No. 7188 of 2024 3
2024:KER:67371
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
.............................................
Crl.M.C. No.7188 of 2024
.......................................................
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2024
ORDER
The petitioner challenges an order dismissing an application for
recall of witnesses, under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is the sole accused in S.C. No.78 of 2017, on
the files of the Principle Assistant Sessions Court, Kollam, which arises
out of Crime No.1107 of 2016 of Kundara Police Station. The said case
ended in conviction of the petitioner by judgment dated 12.11.2021 and
she was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).
However, in the appeal preferred before the Additional Sessions Court-
IV, Kollam in Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2021, the appellate Court
remanded the case after noticing that there was a counter case which
had not been tried simultaneously. To enable, the counter case also to
be disposed of along with SC No.78/2017, the appeal was allowed and
remanded. The trial Court was directed to dispose of the case based on
2024:KER:67371
the evidence already on record, after observing that the parties will be at
liberty to adduce further evidence.
3. After remand, the prosecution did not adduce any
further evidence. Petitioner, on the other hand, filed an application as
Crl. M.P. No.79/2024, seeking to recall and re-examine PW1, PW2 and
PW4 to PW8. The learned Assistant Session Judge by the impugned
order dismissed the said application after observing that, no cause was
made out for recall of the witnesses. Petitioner challenges the aforesaid
order.
4. I have heard Sri. K Siju, the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Smt. Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. A perusal of the order of remand reveals that, it was
not an open remand and the trial Court was directed to reconsider the
case on the basis of the evidence on record. Despite the above
restricted remand, the parties were permitted to adduce further
evidence, if any. Prosecution did not seek to adduce any further
evidence. Therefore, the accused is entitled to adduce defense
evidence. Instead of adducing any further defense evidence, the
accused filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall almost
2024:KER:67371
all the witnesses examined earlier, except PW3. No reasons have been
mentioned in Annexure A5 application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to
justify the request for recalling any of the said witnesses. The
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C indicates it to be a request for re-
trial. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in dismissing the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner could
not bring to the notice of this Court any specific reason for recalling any
of the witnesses.
6. In such circumstance, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order. However, if in any case, the
petitioner has any specific reason to recall any particular witness, she is
at liberty to file a fresh application notwithstanding the dismissal of this
petition. If in case any such application is filed, the trial Court will be at
liberty to consider the same, in accordance with law.
Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
AJ
2024:KER:67371
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE COPY OF FIR WITH FIS IN CRIME NO.1107/2016
OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION DATED 18.5.2016
ANNEXURE A2 THE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO.1107/2016 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION
DATED 15.7.2016
ANNEXURE A3 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2021 IN SC
NO.78/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL. ASSISTANT
SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE A4 THE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRL.APPEAL NO.122/2021
ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-IV, KOLLAM
DATED 28.1.2023
ANNEXURE A5 THE COPY OF PETITION IN CMP NO.79/2024 DATED
1.3.2024 IN SC NO.78/2017 FILED BEFORE THE PRL.
ASSISTANT SESSIONS, KOLLAM
ANNEXURE A6 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.P
NO.79/2014 IN SC NO.78/2017 DATED 24.7.2024 ON
THE FILE OF PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT,
KOLLAM
