Revision petition challenging dismissal of claim for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Court held presence of some evidence precludes Section 232 application before trial concludes.
Revision petition not entertained and 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 S.SIRI JAGAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/23RD ASWINA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2130 of 2012 ()
------------------------------ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.1608/2012 IN SC.315/2008 of II SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 4,6 & 7:
1. VALSAKUMAR , AGED 38 YEARS S/O. KESHAVAN, THEKKINIPURA, C.N.PURAM P.O. MATTUMANDA, PALAKKAD.
2. SURESH , AGED 30 YEARS
3. GIREESH @ PAULOSE , AGED 25 YEARS
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNADHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
R BY ADV. SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
acd
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
Crl.R.P. No.2130 of 2012
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2012
ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 respectively in S.C.No.315/2008 before the Court of Sessions, Palakkad Division.
The petitioners challenge the order of the Sessions Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1608/2012 in Sessions Case No.315/2008, in which the claim of the petitioners for acquittal under Section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.
The contention of the petitioners is that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the petitioners with the crime, which is the subject matter of the Sessions Case. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to acquittal under Section 323 of the Cr.P.C., is the contention raised.
Crl. R.P.No.2130/12
2
which would take considerable time and the petitioners would be subjected to mental trauma in the meanwhile.
subject. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads
thus:
“The accused would be entitled for an acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. , only if there is “no evidence” against the accused in regard to the commission of offences alleged. Prosecution witnesses examined had made mention of the involvement of accused A5 and A7 in the incident. Accused A6 had been referred to as the person who had contacted other accused on phone regarding the movement of the victims of the offence pursuant to the conspiracy hatched to kill them. PW23 had given evidence regarding the phone numbers and call details with respect to phones including that of one owned by one Sureshkumar. So the arguments of the defence counsel for and on behalf of accused A5 to A7 that there is total absence of evidence as to entitle the said accused for an order of acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be found tenable.”
As such, the Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that there is evidence against the petitioners and therefore, Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked against the petitioners. I am not inclined to interfere with that objective satisfaction recorded by the Sessions Judge. When there is some evidence, the sufficiency of that evidence to convict the
3
Crl. R.P.No.2130/12
petitioners is not a matter to be considered while considering an application under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. A definite conclusion regarding the same can be reached only after trial. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled to an acquittal at this stage without standing trial. Further, if this Criminal Revision Petition is admitted and records are called for, it will further delay the disposal of the Sessions Case and therefore, the admission of this Criminal Revision Petition itself would go against the interest of the petitioners going by their own contentions.
For all these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this Criminal Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
Crl. R.P.No.2130/12 4
Crl. R.P.No.2130/12 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Court order dismissing the claim for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. due to absence of evidence.
Whether the presence of some evidence prevents invocation of Section 232 Cr.P.C. for acquittal before trial concludes.
VALSAKUMAR AND ORS.
STATE OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
