Kerala High Court
Prashanth S.Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 4 October, 2018
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 12TH ASWINA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1231 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 153/2016 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT
(SPL. COURT), KOTTAYAM
CRIME NO. 1414/2013 OF Changanassery Police Station , Kottayam
REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
PRASHANTH S.THOMAS,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O SCARIA THOMAS, KARIMATTOM HOUSE, PERUNNA P O,
CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
SRI.V.S.THOSHIN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
T.R RENJITH PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P.No.1231/2018 2
JUDGMENT
The first accused, who is facing trial for offences punishable under sections 376,377,506(1) & 34 of IPC in SC No.153/2016 of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kottayam challenges the framing of charge against him.
2. According to the petitioner herein, on 27/7/2018, the case stood posted for appearance of the petitioner. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted application for exemption of the petitioner. It was allowed by the court below. However, the court below read over the charge to the advocate of the accused, who pleaded not guilty and the court below recorded the plea. According to the petitioner herein,charge has to be read over and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. Hence, it is contended that, the above procedure is illegal. Yet another contention of the petitioner herein is that, according to the charge, offence of rape took place at different places and hence, the court below could have framed the charge only with respect to the offence which was committed within its local jurisdiction and there is misjoinder of charges.
3. It emerges that, the petitioner herein was abroad and sought exemption from his personal appearance. The case stood posted for framing charges. It was in the above circumstances, Crl.R.P.No.1231/2018 3 counsel for the petitioner herein was called upon to answer the charge since he stood on instructions and was holding vakalath. The case now stands posted for trial. At this juncture, I am not inclined to interfere with the legality of procedure adopted by the court below. However, this will not preclude the petitioner herein from challenging the legality of framing the charge at the later stage.
4. Regarding the contention of misjoinder of parties also, it appears that, crux of the prosecution allegation, as evident from the court charge, is that, the petitioner herein assured the victim to marry her and on that promise, raped her at different places over a period from 1/12/2011 to 5/12/2012. Hence, I do not find anything illegal in the framing of charge even with respect to the incident that took place outside the jurisdiction, since it appears to be in the nature of an offence committed in the course of same transaction.
In the above circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE