Kerala High Court
Muhammed Rafi vs The State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 3464 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 18/2011 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS
COURT - III, MANJERI
CRIME NO. 196/2009 OF EDAKKARA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM)
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
MUHAMMED RAFI,
S/O.SAIDALAVI, PARAPPAN HOUSE,
KAALIKADAVU, CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:
--------------------
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI 682031, FOR THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
EDAKKARA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-
02-2017, THE COURT ON 21/2/2017 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3464 of 2016 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE IN CRIME NO.
196/2009 OF THE EDAKKARA POLICE STATION
ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SC.NO. 18/2011 OF
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE III, MANJERI DATED 31.03.2015
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE.
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No.3464 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2017
O R D E R
The petitioner herein was arrayed as the original 4th accused in Crime No.196/2009 of Edakkara police station for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,323,302 read with Section 149 IPC.
2. The allegation of the prosecution was that, on 14/9/2009 at 11.30 pm, the accused due to previous enmity, wrongfully restrained one person and hit him. Due to injuries sustained, later he died in the hospital. Alleging that they had committed murder of the above person, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was laid. All the accused except the petitioner herein faced the trial in SC No.18/2011. The trial court by the judgment dated 31/3/2015 acquitted those accused by Annexure B judgment.
3. Contending that the substratum of the case is broken by virtue of the acquittal of the remaining accused and that the petitioner herein cannot now be roped in with the aid of section 149 IPC, the petitioner has approached this court.
4. Heard and examined the records.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, none of the witnesses had supported the prosecution case. It was further contended that in the light of the acquittal of the other accused, the petitioner herein cannot be roped in with the aid of Section 149 Crl.M.C.No.3464/2016 .2.
IPC in the light of the decision reported in Sathyan S.and Another v. State of Kerala (2015 KHC 819).
6. It is pertinent to note that the deceased had sustained about nine injuries on the body. Even according to the prosecution, all the accused have wrongfully restrained the complainant and attacked him, due to a mistaken identity. Evidence was adduced before the court below. PW1 specifically stated that the deceased was manhandled by a group. PW2 the driver and PW4 the eye witness did not support the prosecution case. However, PW3 had stated about the attack on the defacto complainant. He had supported prosecution case to a limited extent.
Having considered the nature of allegation and the fact that the accused had been absconding till now, I feel that in an allegation involving section 302 IPC, it may be expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of acquittal of the co- accused to a person, who kept away from the judicial proceedings. Hence, I am not inclined to invoke section 482 of Cr.M.C. Accordingly, Crl.M.C.is dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner herein to seek relief before the trial court.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
dpk
/true copy/ PS to Judge.
Crl.M.C.No.3464/2016 .2.