Kerala High Court
Joy vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2012
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/3RD PHALGUNA 1933
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1937 of 2011 ( )
--------------------------------
CRA.532/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA
CC.48/2004 of J.M.F.C.I,NADAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/AEPPELLANT:
-------------------------------
JOY, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. VARGHESE, MAKKAL HOUSE
KAVILUMPARA AMSOM DESOM.
BY ADVS.SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT:
-----------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
----------------------------------------------------
CR.RP No.1937 of 2011-B
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February 2012 Order The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 225B, 353, 332 and 248(1) of IPC. He was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 225B and was, therefore, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. In appeal, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
2. According to the prosecution, on 17.05.2003 at 3.30 am, when PW1, the Forest Range Officer, Olavakkode Range, Palakkad Division, along with other forest officials, including PW 2 and 4, went to arrest the accused from his residential house in connection with a crime (OR No.3/03 of Olavakkode Range), he used force against them and escaped from Cr.RP 1937/11 2 their custody. On these allegations, a complaint was laid.
3. The trial court took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused, the charges were read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined PWs 1 to 9 and had Exts.P1 to P4 marked. MO1 was identified and marked.
4. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, both the courts below came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 225B of IPC has been made out and the accused is guilty of the offence. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the courts below have grievously erred in finding the accused guilty of the Cr.RP 1937/11 3 offence alleged against him. The courts below have not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and that has resulted n miscarriage of justice. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that the arrest of the revision petitioner was necessary in OR No.3/03 and if that be so, they could not have arrested the petitioner. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the accused, by using force escaped from the custody of the forest officials and therefore, he is guilty of the offence. The primary requirement for the prosecution was to show that the revision petitioner was an accused in OR No.3/03 and that his arrest was necessary in that case. It is surprising to note, according to the learned counsel that no documents whatsoever were produced by the prosecution to establish the fact that the revision petitioner was an accused in OR No.3/03 and also that Cr.RP 1937/11 4 his arrest was necessary in that case. It is true that PWs 1,2 and 4 have spoken to in terms of the prosecution case. But the basic requirement was that the prosecution had to produce documents to show that the revision petitioner was an accused in OR No.3/03.
6. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is unnecessarily implicated in OR No.3/03 with ulterior motives. Whatever that be, unless the prosecution is able to establish that the revision petitioner was an accused in OR No.3/03 and that his arrest was necessitated as per law, the prosecution cannot succeed in establishing the present case.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instruction, pointed out that the proceedings in the above said O.R. are still at the investigation stage and that the final report has not been filed so far. Cr.RP 1937/11 5
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below were not justified in convicting the accused merely based on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4. It is not shown that the petitioner was an accused in OR No.3/03 and that his arrest was required as per law. The prosecution evidence is that the accused was sought to be arrested on the basis of statement given by Kuttiadi Jose as accused in OR No.3/03 and none of the forest officers were familiar with the accused in the case. There is also nothing to show that the revision petitioner is an accused in OR No.3/03 and what is his involvement in the said crime. For reasons best known to the prosecution, they felt it unnecessary to provide documents in that regard. The result was that there is nothing to show that the act of the forest officers is justified.
Cr.RP 1937/11 6
9. The definite case of the prosecution was that he was sought to be arrested in OR No.3/03. As already stated, no documents whatsoever are produced by the prosecution to justify the act committed by the forest officials on 17.05.2003.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aide and the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 225B of IPC.
P.Bhavadasan, Judge
sta
Cr.RP 1937/11 7