Appeal against acquittal under Section 372 CrPC dismissed. High Court upheld trial court's finding that prosecution suppressed material facts and sole witness testimony was unreliable, finding no perversity in acquittal.
Appeal dismissed; order of acquittal of respondents affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA
FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933
CRL.A.No. 631 of 2011()
----------------------SC.958/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC)III KOLLAM.
APPELLANT(S): DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
T.K.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, S/O.T.K.KUMARAN AJARI, TUDILVEETTIL, MULAVANA, KOLLAM DT.
BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA
RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED 1-6
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. SABU SREEDHARAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
K. HEMA, J
Crl.Appeal.No.631 OF 2011 ----------------------------------Dated 27th May, 2011
J U D G M E N T
This appeal arises from an order of acquittal. Defacto complainant filed this appeal under proviso to section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Crl.A. No.631/11 2
only sole evidence of PW5. It is not quite reliable. It was also found that prosecution suppressed many vital aspects. Recovery of weapon was not effected and the doctor who examined PW5 was not examined.
Crl.A. No.631/11
3
compromised. But those facts are suppressed by prosecution even though PW5 admitted about compromise in cross examination. The trial court on consideration of rival contentions held as follows:
“The case of PW5 is that on 21.6.2004 at 9.30 pm first accused and his son caused hurt to him from a place at Pattamukku, while he was going to his house alighting from a bus at Kannimukku. Prosecution has not produced any records to show that PW5 was treated on 21.6.2004 in any Hospital. The first information statement Ext.P4 is also silent regarding these material particulars. It is fatal to the prosecution case. Prosecution has suppressed many material facts. The FIR Ext.P5 was registered on 22.6.2004 at 7.30 pm. But the FIR reached the court only on 24.6.2004. This also creates doubt as to the veracity of the case. The defence case is that the local people manhandled injured on 22.6.2004 morning for outraging the modesty of the daughter of first accused. The prosecution has suppressed material facts of the case. The evidence of PW1 is also with improvements and contradictions. The sole testimony of PW5 is not reliable. He has not even undergone treatment on 21.6.2004. The doctor who examined PW5 was also not examined. The material objects used by the accused persons had also not been recovered by the prosecution. The investigating officer PW7 has arrested accused nos.1,3,4 but the weapons used by them were not recovered.”
There is no reason to interfere with the above findings. They
are only reasonable and sound. I do not find any perversity in the
Crl.A. No.631/11
4
findings entered into by trial court. Though case of PW5 is that he was examined by a doctor in Joel Hospital on 21.6.2004, there is no evidence to prove this. Such facts are not stated in the first information statement also. In such circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed.
Sou.
Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. // True Copy //
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's finding of acquittal is perverse given the sole testimony of the complainant and suppression of material facts.
Whether the High Court should intervene in the acquittal of accused persons charged with various offences under the IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T.K. ANANTHAKRISHNAN
STATE OF KERALA
MURALIDHARAN
SAJI
GIREESH
RATHEESH
K. HEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
