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 2, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Renjith Lal vs State Of Kerala

Author: Sunil Thomas

Bench: Sunil Thomas

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

          WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938

                                           Crl.MC.No. 2051 of 2015 ()
                                               ---------------------------
    CC.NO. 167/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI
 CRIME NO. 119/2005 OF PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA
                                                   ---------------


PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
----------------------------------------


                     RENJITH LAL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SOMARAJAN,
                     THEKKEKARA HOUSE, VELLAYIL, EZHUMATTOOR,
                     PATHANAMTHITTA.




                     BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
----------------------------------------------


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




                      BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH


            THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




sts

CRL.MC.NO.2051/2015


                                APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:


ANNEX       A CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET NO.19/06
            DATED 21/2/06 FILED BY A.S.I PERUMPETTY POLICE STATION
            BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA.

ANNEX B     COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.167/08 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
            MAGISTRATE I, RANNY DATED 31/5/2011.


RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:                      NIL




                                             /TRUE COPY/


                                             P.S.TO JUDGE




sts



                        SUNIL THOMAS, J.
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Crl.M.C.No. 2051 of 2015
                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2016

                               O R D E R

The petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.119/2005 of Perumpetty police station for offences punishable under Sections 143,451,448,323 &109 read with section 199 IPC.

2. The prosecution alleged that,on 13/12/2005 the accused criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted him. Complaint was laid and after investigation, final report was laid. The matter was taken cognizance as CC No.167/2008. The second accused was not available for trial. The first accused, who faced the trial, was acquitted by judgment dated 31/5/2011. Annexure-B is the copy of that judgment. Annexure-B shows that in the absence of any material to connect the accused with the alleged offence, the accused, who faced the trial, was acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the absence of any evidence, questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be dispensed with. Learned counsel further submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner herein was split up and is now pending as C.C No.142/2011. According to the petitioner herein, in the light of Annexure-B judgment which evidences acquittal of the Crl.M.C.No.2051/2015 2 accused in the absence of any material to link the accused who faced the trial with the offence, the substratum of the case is lost and the prosecution against the petitioner will not end in successful conviction . Accordingly, the further proceedings are liable to be quashed,contends the learned counsel.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other crime and that the other accused was acquitted after full fledged trial.

5. In the light of the above, I am satisfied that no fruitful purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner herein for full fledged trial again. It can only be a mere waste of time. Hence, I feel that Crl.M.C.is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, Crl.M.C.is allowed. All further proceedings pursuant to C.C.No.142/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Ranni, stand quashed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS Judge dpk /true copy/PS to Judge.

Crl.M.C.No.2051/2015 3