Kerala High Court
Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
2025:KER:12585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 25TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 21 OF 2025
CRIME NO.429/2003 OF Kilimanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
SC NO.1532 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
COURT - VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / III ADDITIONAL MACT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
AJAYAN
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O JANARDHANAN CHETTIYAR, RESIDING AT ASHA BHAVAN,
MULLAKKARA, THOLIKUZHI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691536.
BY ADVS.
J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHINE DINESH
SUMEEN S.
O.MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL
MUHAMMED SWADIQ
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
SRI.M.C ASHI, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12585
CRL.MC NO. 21 OF 2025 2
ORDER
Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.344 of 2004 registered by the CBCID, SIG-I, Thiruvananthapuram for offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 212, 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending as SC No.1532 of 2009 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-
Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 to 10, out of animosity towards deceased Ratheesh, criminally conspired and in prosecution of their common object of committing murder of Ratheesh, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and waited at the Vandannoor Park Junction at about 4.30 p.m on 22.12.2003. By about 5.30 p.m, accused No.2 brought Ratheesh to that place in an autorickshaw. Ratheesh was then pulled out of the autorickshaw and severely assaulted by the accused.
Finally, Ratheesh fell unconscious and later succumbed to the injuries sustained in the assault.
2025:KER:12585 CRL.MC NO. 21 OF 2025 3
3. After committal, the case was taken on file as S.C No.1532 of 2009 of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Accused Nos.1 and 5 to 9 faced trial in that case and were acquitted as per Annexure A2 order. As the petitioner had gone abroad after being enlarged on bail, he was not able to participate in the trial. Consequently, the case against him and the other absent accused, except accused No.10, who was no more, was split up and refiled. The petitioner's continued absence resulted in the case against him being included in the Long Pending Register.
4. Pursuant to this Court's direction dated 7.1.2025, petitioner surrendered before the court, was granted bail and the case resurrected as S.C No.1766 of 2009. Petitioner is seeking to get the proceedings against him quashed on the strength of the judgment of acquittal rendered in the case of his co-accused.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the categoric findings in Annexure A2, the substratum of 2025:KER:12585 CRL.MC NO. 21 OF 2025 4 the prosecution case is lost and as such, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner. To address this argument, reference is made to paragraphs 14 to 20 of the judgment.
6. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
7. A close scrutiny of Annexure A2 judgment reveals that all of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. Their deposition was to the effect that they were not able to identify the accused who was standing in the dark. Even PW4, the mother of the deceased Ratheesh deposed that she could not identify the persons who had knocked at her door on the fatal day and enquired about Ratheesh. The prosecution evidence is thus thoroughly insufficient to prove the charges levelled against the accused. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the finding in Annexure A2 that the oral and documentary evidence do not bring out the complicity of the accused in the alleged occurrence. Being so, I am of the opinion that continuance of 2025:KER:12585 CRL.MC NO. 21 OF 2025 5 the proceedings against the petitioner will be an empty formality and will only result in wastage of valuable judicial time.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C No.1766 of 2009 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, as against the petitioner, is quashed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Sru 2025:KER:12585 CRL.MC NO. 21 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 21/2025 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO: 429 OF 2003 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, WHICH WAS RE-NUMBERED AS CRIME NO: 344 OF CBCID, SIG-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2024 IN S.C. NO: 1532 OF 2009 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM