Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sajeev vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2017

Author: Sunil Thomas

Bench: Sunil Thomas

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

        TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/23RD PHALGUNA, 1938

                      Crl.MC.No. 1580 of 2017 ()
                      ---------------------------


AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 238/2016 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - II,
PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO. 164/2012 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA



PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------

            SAJEEV,
            AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.SADANANDAN,
            KOTTAKKATTUTHARAYIL HOUSE,
            CHATHANKERY MURI, PERINGARA VILLAGE.


            BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
                    SRI.P.K.SATHEESH KUMAR


RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & INJURED:
----------------------------------------------------------------

          1. STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

          2. PONNAMMA,
            AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.MANIKUTTAN,
            RESIDING AT PULINTHARAYIL HOUSE, PERINGARA VILLAGE,
            THIRUVALLA 689101.

          3. MANU @ MAHESH,
            AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MANIKUTTAN,
            RESIDING AT PULINTHARAYIL HOUSE, PERINGARA VILLAGE,
            THIRUVALLA 689101.


            R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.ANILKUMAR
            R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH


       THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION  ON
14-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 1580 of 2017 ()
---------------------------




                                APPENDIX



PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

ANNEXURE A     CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET BEFORE THE DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT-2, PATHANAMTHITTA

ANNEXURE B     TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

ANNEXURE C     TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.



RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS   :  NIL
-----------------------




                                                             /TRUE COPY/




                                                          P. A. TO JUDGE




Pn



                         SUNIL THOMAS, J.
                -------------------------------------------
                   Crl. M. C. No. 1580 of 2017
                -------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 14th day of March, 2017

                               O R D E R

The petitioner herein was originally arrayed as the 1st accused in FIR No.164/2012 of Pulikeezhu Police station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 324 and 308 of IPC. It was alleged by the prosecution that, on 08.04.2012, the petitioner herein wrongfully restrained the injured and attacked with a knife. Crime was registered and after investigation, final report was filed. The case was taken cognizance as S.C. No.122/2013. The 2nd accused alone faced the trial. Ultimately by judgment dated 19.08.2016, the 2nd accused was acquitted. The case against the petitioner herein was split and refiled as S.C.No.238/2016.

2. The petitioner herein contends that the dispute with the defacto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent and with the 3rd respondent victim have been settled and no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein.

3. It is seen that the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 relied on Annexures B and C affidavits filed by them to contend that the disputes have been resolved. It is submitted by Crl. M. C. No. 1580 of 2017 2 both sides that they do not propose to pursue the matter.

4. It appears that, serious allegations are not raised against the petitioner. Use of a knife is alleged and offence under Section 308 was attributed. However, a perusal of the judgment, a copy of which was placed before me at the time of hearing, indicates that, PW1 the eye witness and PW2 the injured turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any manner. PW1 stated that she does not know the assailants and she did not disclose the details of the assailants to the Police. PW2 also deposed that, she does not know the accused.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime and that the parties have resolved their disputes.

6. Having regard to the quality of evidence, I feel that, no purpose will be served by prosecuting the petitioner herein. Hence the Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.

In the result, Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.238/2016 stand quashed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

Pn