Kerala High Court
Ratheesh vs State Of Kerala on 24 May, 2016
Author: K. Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/25TH JYAISHTA, 1939
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 605 of 2017
-----------------------------------------
C.M.P.NO. 5210/2016 IN S.C.NO. 775/2016 OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT, THRISSUR
--------------
PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED :
------------------------------------------------
RATHEESH,
S/O.RAJAN, KANIYATH HOUSE, KANAKAMALA,
VATTEKKAD, KODAKARA, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS
SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE CENTRE (THRISSUR DISTRICT),
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 605 of 2017
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1: A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT NUMBERED AS 1222/2016
DATED 24.05.2016 OF TOWN WEST POLICE STATION FILED
BEFORE THE JFCM NO. II, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE A2: A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SEEKING DISCHARGE OF
THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227 CR.PC NUMBERED
AS C.M.P.5210/2016 IN S.C 775/2016 DATED 17.12.2016.
ANNEXURE A3: A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN C.M.P.5210/2016 IN
S.C 775/2016 DATED 18.05.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
Msd.
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl. Rev. P. No. 605 of 2017
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2017
O R D E R
1.The petitioner is the 4th accused in SC No.775/2016 on the file of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Accused 1 to 3 are alleged to have committed murder of one Satheesh. In the final report, the petitioner is shown to have committed the offences under Sections 118, 202 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, though he knew about the commission of murder, he intentionally omitted to inform the police about it and facilitated the murder. He also harboured the culprits. In the final report, he is shown to have committed the offences under Sections 118, 202 and 212 IPC. In the trial court, the petitioner submitted that the facts of the case do not attract any offence so far as the petitioner is concerned and he pleaded for discharge. By Annexure A3 order, the trial court accepted the prosecution case that, prima facie, there is evidence to show that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 118, 202 and 212 IPC. This is challenged in Crl. Rev. P. No. 605 of 2017 ..2..
this Crl.M.C.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public Prosecutor.
3.The learned Sessions Judge has observed as follows;
"The fact that the 4th accused immediately on information given by the 2nd accused proceeded to the flat where the alleged murder took place and assisted A2 makes it quite clear that the 4th accused is aware regarding the plan to commit the murder of deceased Satheesh even prior to the commission of the offences. So it is quite clear that there were attempts from the side of A4, 6 and 8 to conceal the design to commit the offences"
This reason does not appear to be valid. Merely because the petitioner, after the murder, went to the place of occurrence at the request of the 2nd accused, it cannot be held that the former had knowledge about the intention of accused 1 to 3 to commit the murder of Satheesh.
4.The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is evidence to show that before commission of the offence, the petitioner along with the second accused and another person travelled in a car and in the course of the journey, the second accused discussed with the seventh accused on phone the plan to commit murder of Satheesan. There is no evidence to show what the second and seventh accused Crl. Rev. P. No. 605 of 2017 ..3..
talked about. So, it is not possible to hold that there is any material to show that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 118 IPC.
5.Section 202 IPC provides that a person, who knows about commission of an offence, is bound to give information about it and if he fails to do so intentionally, he is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, or with both. There are materials showing that the petitioner knew about the murder of Satheesh. Under Section 39 Cr.P.C., he was bound to inform the police about it. So, Section 202 IPC is attracted. There are also materials to show that he harboured the offenders. Section 212 IPC also is attracted. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. The charge framed by the court below is set aside in part to the extent the petitioner is charged with having committed the offence under Section 118 IPC. The charge framed by the trial court shall be altered accordingly.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE bka/-