Kerala High Court
P.Aravindan vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAYOF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 2967 of 2016
------------------------------------
CC 632/2015 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD
-------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :
-----------------------------------------
P.ARAVINDAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, PUTHIYAKANDAM, AJANURR GRAMAM, ANANTHASRAMAM, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
----------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.Crl.MC.No. 2967 of 2016
------------------------------------
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.442/2002 OF THE HOSDURG POLICE STATION DATED 29.09.2002.
A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.515/2005 OF CJM, KASARAGOD DATED 25.08.2007.
A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.20/2012 OF CJM, KASARAGOD DATED 31.10.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE Msd.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.2967 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 09th June, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1.The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.632 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod.
He was proceeded against along with 5 others for having committed offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 353, 188 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and S.3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, 1984.
2.The prosecution allegation is that, the accused with intent to obstruct the official duty of PW1 and others and to cause damage to public property formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of a common object committed the offence of rioting and also caused damaged to the K.S.E.B.Office at Mavunkal.
3.It is submitted by the learned counsel that initially trial was proceeded against accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 and as per judgment dated 25.08.2007 in C.C.No.515/2005, the Crl.M.C.2967 of 2016 : 2 :
accused were acquitted under S.248(1) of the Cr.P.C. Later, the 2nd accused had surrendered before court and trial was proceeded with in C.C.No.20/2012. As per Annexure A3 judgment dated 31.10.2015, he was also extended the benefit of doubt and was acquitted under S.248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, on the basis of Annexures A2 and A3 contends that the substratum of the case against him has been destroyed and it would be nothing but a futile exercise to direct the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of trial.
4.I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.
5.In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to hold in para 50 of the said Judgment in the following manner :-
[50] ...................................At the same time, the judgment rendered in the case of a coaccused and the reasoning of the judgment contained therein or appreciation of the evidence therein are not matters to be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself. It may however, be a case where the very substratum of the case is lost which may be an exception to this rule. However, as held by the apex court it has to be held that even when a coaccused is acquitted in the very same trial, the other accused can be convicted if there are good reasons to do so. In other words, the acquittal of some of the accused by itself is not a reason to bar the trial in the case of the other Crl.M.C.2967 of 2016 : 3 :
accused.
6.In Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC
812) it was held by this Court that when it is apparent from the facts of the case that the substratum of the case has been destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused.
7.I have perused Annexures A2 and A3 judgments passed by the Courts below. No evidence worth the name was adduced before the Court below by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime . More pertinently , there is a specific finding that none of the witnesses had occasion to identify any of the accused as participants of the crime. Though the reasoning of the judgment or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule
8.I am of the definite opinion that the substratum of the case has been destroyed and the continued prosecution of the Crl.M.C.2967 of 2016 : 4 :
petitioner will not serve any purpose.
9.In the result, this application is allowed. All further proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.632 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod, shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge