Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The above two newspaper reports, though unconnected to each other, is stated to have provoked the police officers, who were referred to in the above reports. They allegedly decided to retaliate. Santhosh Nair and Abdul Rasheed solicited the assistance of their common friend SanthoshKumar. They hatched a W.P(C).Nos.30307, 30308, 30309 of 2015 and Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 of 2017 conspiracy and engaged one 'Happy Rajesh' who was a local goonda. Happy Rajesh and his gang were given the quotation to attack Babu Unnithan. Accordingly, on 16.04.2011, Happy Rajesh and his gang attacked Babu Unnithan with weapons, who sustained near fatal injuries. He had to undergo treatment in hospital for several days. Crime was registered by the Sasthamcottah police as Crime No.441 of 2017 for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, investigation was taken over by the crime branch. Subsequently, alleging that the incident involved two senior police officers of the Kerala police force and that they were exerting pressure on the investigating agency to sabotage the investigation, Babu Unnithan approached this Court for a direction to the CBI to take over the investigation. This Court directed CBI to take over the investigation, Accordingly, CBI registered the case as RCI(S)/ 2012/CBI/SCB/CHENNAI. In the course of investigation, involvement of Santhosh Kumar, Santhosh Nair and Abdul Rasheed were brought out and their complicity established. However, to prove the guilt against the accused, CBI thought it fit to take evidence of Santhosh Kumar as an approver. Accordingly, his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Judicial W.P(C).Nos.30307, 30308, 30309 of 2015 and Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 of 2017 First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. Thereafter, his statement under section 306 Cr.P.C was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. By order dated 07.05.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2012, CJM granted pardon to the 5th accused, Santhosh Kumar, on condition of making full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances and facts within his knowledge relating to the offence and every other persons concerned. After investigation, final report was laid against five persons including Santhosh Kumar and 2 DySP's. The case was taken on file by the CBI court, Thiruvananthapuram as S.C.No.1357 of 2013.

8. CBI has preferred Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 to quash Annexure-A9 order, by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate granted W.P(C).Nos.30307, 30308, 30309 of 2015 and Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 of 2017 pardon to Santhosh Kumar. CBI has now taken a stand that Santhosh Kumar is the main perpetrator of all the three crimes and the main culprit involved, who deceived the investigating agency by feigning ignorance regarding the facts involved in Happy Rajesh murder case and Babu Kumar murder attempt case. He also played deception on the investigating agency by concealing his deep involvement in above two cases and thereby procured the order granting pardon under section 306 Cr.P.C. It was alleged that he did not make full disclosure of all main facts concerning his involvement in the Happy Rajesh murder and BabuKumar murder attempt case. He also deceptively refrained from making full disclosure of the crimes and with the malafide intention to exculpate himself and his gang members from legal punishment, gave a distorted version to the court. It was alleged that his deep involvement in two other serious crimes were not noted by the CBI and hence they sought permission for granting pardon. Public interest and social interest demands that such a person who is the perpetrator of three crimes, shall not be granted pardon.

13. The grant of pardon to the Santhosh Kumar is the subject matter of Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016. Records reveal that prosecuting agency had requested the court below to record the statement of the said Santhosh Kumar and to declare him as an approver. This was accepted by the court below and pardon was granted. It was accepted by Santhosh Kumar. The specific premise W.P(C).Nos.30307, 30308, 30309 of 2015 and Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 of 2017 on which challenge is made is on the ground that the Santhosh Kumar did not make a full and complete disclosure. This is countered by Santhosh Kumar, inter alia, by contending that there is a long delay in seeking this relief. The CBI Chennai unit took over the investigation of Unnithan murder attempt case on 05.01.2012. On 31.03.2012, section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the Santhosh Kumar was recorded. Thereafter, Crl.M.P.No.1447 of 2012 was filed by the CBI before the CJM, Ernakulam under section 306 Cr.P.C. By order dated 07.05.2012, it was allowed and Santhosh Kumar was permitted to give statement on a specific condition that he shall make full and complete disclosure of the entire circumstances regarding the case. Statement under section 306 Cr.P.C was recorded on 10.05.2012. The present Crl.M.C is filed only on 26.02.2016. The long delay of more than four years in approaching this Court with such a prayer is sought to be justified by the CBI, on the ground that, when the permission of the CBI Court to invoke section 306 Cr.P.C was sought, investigation into the Happy Rajesh murder case had not been entrusted with the CBI. The explanation regarding the delay does not appear to be sustainable for more reasons than one. Even in the statement of Santhosh Kumar recorded under section 306 Cr.P.C, there is a W.P(C).Nos.30307, 30308, 30309 of 2015 and Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 of 2017 reference that the Happy Rajesh's case had some connection with Unnithan murder attempt case. Further, Happy Rajesh murder case was taken over by the CBI in 2012. With this materials, it is clear that atleast in 2012, investigation agency had sufficient notice about the alleged close connection between both the crimes and the CBI waited till 2016 to come up with such a prayer.

19. In CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013)15 SCC

222), the Supreme Court reiterated the scope and ambit of the provisions under section 306 Cr.P.C and reaffirmed the legal W.P(C).Nos.30307, 30308, 30309 of 2015 and Crl.M.C.No.1554 of 2016 of 2017 principles mentioned above. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Laxmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 938) reminded that Court should not be oblivious of complex solution where accused who is granted pardon stands indicted in other criminal cases also. In the present case, the petitioner was given pardon in Unnithan murder attempt case, whereas according to the prosecution, the same person is an accused and has deep involvement in the two other crimes. According to Santhosh Kumar, he has no role in the two remaining crimes. The prosecution has a case that all of the three cases have common thread connecting it. Even in the statement given by the Santhosh Kumar under section 306 Cr.P.C, he has referred to two other crimes, which also suggest the link between three crimes, though he feigned ignorance regarding the details. In the light of above, there cannot be any doubt that Santhosh Kumar was expected to make full and complete disclosure of the entire facts including those connecting him into remaining two crimes, if he had any role and not confined to Unnithan case alone.