Allowed

Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016Crl.MC/1738/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Court held that since co-accused were acquitted on grounds of no evidence, continuing the trial would be futile and serve no legal purpose.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) in S.C.No.25 of 2011 at Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur are quashed.

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1738 of 2014

¶6

S.C.NO. 25/2011 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANUR

¶7

CRIME NO. 76/2000 OF PAYYANUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 :

¶9

SATHYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

PRAKASAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. KUTTYUMBU, RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED

¶15

2. CHENNOTH ANGADIYIL HARIS, S/O. ASSAINAR HAJI, ASHRAF MANZIL, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, VADAKKUMBAD, P.O.RAMANTHALI, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 104.

¶16

ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.06.2016 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 8102 OF 2014.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 1738 of 2014

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶23

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO. 157/2004 OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, PAYYANUR, DATED 27.07.2009.

¶24

ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF F.I.R REGISTERED BY PAYYANUR POLICE IN CRIME NO.76/2000.

¶25

ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.76/2000 REGISTERED BY PAYYANNUR POLICE.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶32

====================== Crl.M.C. No. 1738 of 2014

¶33

================= Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016 =======================

¶34

ORDER

¶35

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.25 of 2011 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur.

¶36

2.The said case has arisen from Crime No.76 of 2000 of Payyannur Police Station registered inter alia for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was completed and final report was laid before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The case was then committed to the Cort of Sessions and was taken cognizance of as S.C. No.157 of 2004.

¶37

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 4.3.2000 at about 8 p.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained CWs 1 to 3 and inflicted injuries on them with deadly weapons. Specific overt acts are alleged against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and

¶38

Crl.M.C. No. 1738 of 2016 2

¶39

Records reveal that the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 7 in the Charge.

¶40

4.All the accused except the petitioner and the 2^nd accused appeared before the trial Court and faced the trial. The first informant and one of the injured witness did not appear before the Court to give evidence. One of the injured entered the box and gave evidence as PW 1. He did not support the prosecution case and went on to say that he was unable to identify his assailants. After examining PW 1 and PW 2, the evidence was closed and the questioning of the accused under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code was dispensed with. They were finally acquitted under Section 232 of the Code holding that it was a case of no evidence. Annexure 1 is the judgment and the same was delivered on 27.7.2009 and has not been challenged till date.

¶41

5.Inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagamalleswara Rao (K) v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 (2) SCC 532 , it is urged by the learned Counsel that the accused against whom

¶42

Crl.M.C. No. 1738 of 2016 3

¶43

specific overt acts are alleged have been found not guilty and have been acquitted. In so far as accused No. 7 is concerned only general allegations are levelled and he was roped in under section 149 of the IPC. After the acquittal of the 4 persons it would not be permissible to assume or conclude that the petitioners had acted conjointly with the charged accused in the case unless the charge itself specifically said so. If that be the case, acquittal of accused Nos. 1 , 4 , 5 and 6 would be fatal and the continuance of prosecution of the petitioners will be nothing but a futile exercise. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in Jalalu V Rajan and Another 2013 (2) KLJ 93 to buttress the said proposition. It is submitted that in view of the acquittal of the other accused, the substratum of the case as against the petitioner has been shattered.

¶44

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶45

7.I have gone through Annexure-I judgment. It appears that the prosecution examined only two witnesses to

¶46

Crl.M.C. No. 1738 of 2016 4

¶47

bring home the guilt, out of which PW 1 was one of the injured witnesses. He testified in unequivocal terms that

¶48

the accused could not be identified. The learned Sessions Judge has conclusively held that there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime and they were acquitted under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said finding has become final.

¶49

8.In Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT

¶50

552) a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to hold that though the judgment rendered in the case of a coaccused and the reasoning of the judgment contained therein or appreciation of the evidence therein are not matters to be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself, a case where the very substratum of the case is lost may be an exception to this rule.

¶51

9.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioners to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and the only purpose that will be served is to gnaw into precious

¶52

Crl.M.C. No. 1738 of 2016 5

¶53

time during which more productive work can be done by the court below. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote owing to the acquittal of the co accused.

¶54

In the result this petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners who are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No.25 of 2011 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Payyannur shall stand quashed.

¶55

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶56

SKV

Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

John M.Kuriakose Vs the Superintendent of Police

Subash Chand Jain Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Lekha Surendran Vs P.v.Sreedharan