Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 118 penal code in Rajeendranath vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025Matching Fragments
On 12.3.2009 at around 18.50 hours, the accused persons, in prosecution of their common intention, had hatched a conspiracy and, after forming into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and the murder of a person named 'Vinayan'. The 8th accused (petitioner) had 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 concealed the commission of the offences committed by accused Nos. 1 to 5. Thus, the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 118 IPC.
3. The petitioner's case in the criminal miscellaneous case is that the case was initially committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Thalassery, who had framed the charge (Annexure 2) as against the petitioner for allegedly committing the offence under Section 118 IPC. Subsequently, the case was made over to the Trial Court, which altered the charge (Annexure 3) by adding the offences under Sections 143, 147 and 148, 506, 302 read with Section 149 IPC as against the petitioner, in addition to Section 118 IPC. Immediately, the petitioner filed an application to alter the charge as against him. However, by Annexure 4 order, the Trial Court dismissed the said application, holding that the charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC as against the petitioner cannot be deleted. Simultaneously, the Trial Court again 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 altered the charge (Annexure 5) by adding Sections 120B and 341 as against the petitioner. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the Principal Sessions Judge had already framed the charge against the petitioner. Only the offence under Section 118 IPC is attracted against the petitioner. The addition of offences under Sections 120B, Section 302 r/w 149 IPC has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. There is no material to prove that the petitioner had any role in inflicting injuries on the deceased or that he was at the scene of the occurrence. The altered charges (Annexures 3 and 5) and Annexure 4 order are patently erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the Crl. M.C.
7. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he is the 8th accused in the above crime.
8. The Principal Sessions Judge had framed Annexure 2 charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 118 IPC, i.e., for concealing the offences committed by accused Nos. 1 to 5. After the case was made over, the Trial Court, after re-appreciating the materials on record, altered the charge against the petitioner and, thereafter, rejected the application filed by the petitioner to drop the offence under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC on the specific finding that the police report, statements of witnesses, the documents and material 2025:KER:98931 CRL.MC NO. 10388 OF 2025 objects disclose the ingredients of the offences and raise a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offences. Hence, the Trial Court is not inclined to delete the charge under Sections 302 and 149 IPC against the petitioner. Simultaneously, the Trial Court again altered the charge as mentioned above.