The High Court of Kerala considered a Criminal Leave Petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of acquittal in a criminal trial involving voluntarily caused hurt. The court admitted to hearing the matter and analyzed the evidence and the lower court's reasoning.
The Criminal Leave Petition is dismissed.
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 MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934
Crl.L.P..No. 823 of 2008 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC.568/2000 of J.M.F.C.-II,PALAKKAD, DTD.22.1.2004
ACCUSED(S)/COMPLAINANT:
ABDUL MANOF, S/O. BAPPUKUTTY, KADAVATH VEEDU, PARALI PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE & ACCUSED:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
2. SHRI.PRASAD, S/O. ABRAHAM,
3. SUKUNA SUNDARAN,
THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.L.P..No. 823 of 2008
APPENDIX EXHIBITS FOR THE PETITIONER :- ANNEXURE I : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.568/2000 OF JFCM-II, PALAKKAD EXHIBITS FOR THE RESPONDENT :- NIL //TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
ami/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2012.
O R D E R
The complainant in a private complaint is the petitioner herein who seeks leave of this Court to file an appeal against the judgment dated 22.1.2004 in C.C.No.568 of 2000 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad, since the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-two in numbers, under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., who faced the prosecution for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.
2
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
intercepted him near the Kalmandapam bridge and attacked A1 beat with a wooden rafter on the head and face of the complainant and A2 beat with stick on his knee voluntarily causing hurt to him. It is the further case of the complainant that he was residing alongwith his family in the house of the father of accused no.1 on rent and accused no.1 and his family members were always threatening the complainant and his family and therefore the wife of the complainant filed O.S.No.953 of 1999 before the Munsiff's court, Palakkad, against the father of A1 and the accused attacked the complainant due to the above enemity. It is also the case of the complainant that he had questioned A1 against the disturbance caused by A1 to the female servant in the house of the complainant and the accused caused hurt to him. According to the complainant, the police had registered a crime, but the same was referred and therefore he approached the trial court.
3
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
of Pws.1 and 2 and preliminary hearing, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the same was denied by the accused when it read over and explained to him. Thereafter, Pws.1 and 2 were further examined and PW3 was also examined and Ext.P1 was marked. Finally, the trial court has found that the complainant has not succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore extending the benefit of doubt, the accused are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above findings and order of acquittal are sought to be challenged for which leave of this Court is prayed for under section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
4
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
liable to be interfered with. According to the learned counsel, without assigning any proper and convincing reasons, the learned Magistrate rejected the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence inspite of the fact that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3. It is also the case of the counsel that the evidence of PW3, who is an independent witness, is also discarded by the trial court. It is the further case of the counsel that on the basis of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the complainant has established his consistent case and the learned Magistrate rejected the case merely on the ground that the police has referred the case. According to the counsel, in the absence of any major discrepancy among the prosecution evidence, the learned Magistrate is not correct in rejecting the version of eye witnesses simply on the basis of minor inconsistencies. Therefore, the counsel submitted that in case an appeal is entertained, there is every possibility to interfere with the findings of the court below
5
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
and to convict the accused.
In this juncture it is relevant to note that the police has already registered a crime on the basis of the statement given by the complainant, as crime no.12/00 but subsequently the police has referred the same as false case. Ext.D1 is the said refer report. DW1 is the Sub Inspector of police, Town North Police station, through whom Ext.D1
6
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
was marked. Going by the evidence of the prosecution it can be seen that, according to PW2, the doctor and as disclosed by Ext.P1 wound certificate PW1, the complainant had sustained the following injuries :
But according to DW1-the Sub Inspector of police of Town North Police station, the investigation revealed that the case is a false one and according to the police and as per Ext.D1 report, the complainant sustained injuries while he was travelling in a motor cycle and when he reached near the Kalmandapam bridge, the vehicle was skid up and overturned and thus the complainant sustained injuries. According to the defence, as the complainant and his family were evicted from the house of father of A1, the case was falsely foisted against the accused. In this respect it is
7
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
relevant to note that, DW1 has deposed that an intimation was sent to the police station by the doctor stating that the complainant was undergoing treatment in the hospital for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident at Kalmandapam on 9.1.2000 at 9 p.m. According to DW1, in the statement recorded during the investigation, the doctor concerned has stated about the said fact to DW1.
8
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
road traffic accident.
9
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
accept the evidence of PW3 as an eye witness. The learned Magistrate has also found that, though PW3 deposed, that he had stated in his sworn statement about the beating by both the accused, the sworn statement given by PW3 shows that he stated before the court that only one person beat PW1. Thus, after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PW3, the learned Magistrate has found that the identification of accused made by PW3 before the court cannot be accepted as correct. Similarly, after appreciation of the evidence of PW3, the learned Magistrate is also of the opinion that the evidence of PW3 cannot be accepted as correct, that he had seen the incident.
10
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
it is stated that after the incident, he was taken to the hospital, in the cross examination he has deposed that he reached the hospital, which is about 1 k.m. away from the place of incident, only at 3.30 a.m. and that at first he went to his house. The learned Magistrate has also found that in the re-examination, PW1 has stated that though he was sent to the hospital by the people gathered there, he went to his home and thereafter only, he went to the hospital. It is the further finding of the learned Magistrate that though according to PW1 he reached the hospital at 3.30 a.m., the evidence of PW2 shows that, PW1 was examined by PW2 only at 8.50 a.m. The learned Magistrate was not prepared to accept the explanation offered by PW1 with respect to the delay in examining him by the doctor. On the basis of the discussion in para 16 of the judgment, the learned Magistrate was also not inclined to believe the case of PW1 that he had sustained injuries on his head and there was bleeding and there was injury on his right knee, since he did
11
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
not preferred to go first to the hospital. The learned Magistrate was also of the opinion that, especially in the light of the evidence of DW1 that intimation was received from the hospital stating that the cause of injury was road traffic accident, the case of the complainant cannot be accepted, particularly when the parties were on enemical terms. Thus according to the learned Magistrate, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
and reasonings cannot be treated as perverse or illegal.
State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal
(2012(4) Supreme 72), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
“In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence.”
Thus, on examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case, in the light of the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, it can be seen that the petitioner has miserably failed to show that the judgment sought to be impugned is a perverse one. No substantial reasons are made out to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused and to disturb the presumption of innocence bolstered as per the
13
Crl.L.P.No.823 of 2008
judgment in question.
In the result, this Criminal Leave Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge
ami/
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should grant leave to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a criminal trial.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal as the judgment is not perverse or illegal.
Whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out a prima facie case to challenge the findings and order of acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan LalReferred¶79
State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal (2012(4) Supreme 72)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Manof
State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecutor
Shri. Prasad
Sukuna Sundaran
V.K. Mohanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
