Kerala High Court
Xxx vs Pradeep on 19 January, 2026
CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:4288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1148/2016 OF Ambalappuzha Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2024 IN CRL.M.P
NO. 3359 OF 2024 IN SC NO.412 OF 2019 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT, ALAPPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM:
XXX
XXXXX XXXXX,
PIN - 123456
BY ADV SHRI.LATHEEF P.K.
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
1 PRADEEP
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. PRASANNAN, PAROOR, LAKSHAM VEEDU,
KUNNUMMA P.O, THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688562
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.R.VIJAYACHANDRAN
CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:4288
OTHER PRESENT:
SR. PP - SRI. BREEZ M.S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025
3
2026:KER:4288
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026 The defacto complainant/victim in S.C No 412 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Alappuzha filed this Criminal revision petition challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P. No. 3359 of 2024, by which the learned Sessions Judge permitted the accused to recall and further examine her.
2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the impugned order is an abuse of the process of the Court and therefore she prayed for setting aside the order passed by the leaned Sessions Judge.
3. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent/accused argued that a memory card containing the voice of the victim was produced before the Sessions Court along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and for confronting the said voice, the witness is to be recalled. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
4. The offences involved in the case are under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 354, 501(i), 376 of the IPC. During the course of the prosecution evidence, the 1st respondent/accused filed the above Crl.M.P praying for recalling the victim to confront her with the voice in the memory card, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge. CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:4288
5. According to the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, in case the voice in the memory card is proved, the same will disprove the prosecution case and therefore recalling and further examination of PW1 is necessary to prove the innocence of the accused.
6. Since the 1st respondent has produced the memory card along with Section 65B certificate and since the accused contends that the said memory card contains the voice of the victim which proves his innocence, the accused is to be given an opportunity to prove the same.
In the above circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in allowing Crl.M.P No. 3359 of 2024. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the same does not call for interference by this Court. In the result, this Crl.Rev.Pet. is dismissed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE NJ CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:4288 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO. 69 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRAIL COURT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2024 Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 348 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA DATED 01.10.2024 Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO. 3359/2024 DATED 02.12.2024