Allowed

Manesh @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016Crl.MC/2501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash pending trial against petitioner. Court held that since co-accused were acquitted and prosecution evidence failed to connect any accused, the case substratum was destroyed, warranting quashing of proceedings despite general rule.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings pending against the petitioner in L.P.No.13 of 2014 shall stand quashed.

Manesh @ Manu Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2501 of 2016

¶6

L.P.R.13/2014 IN SC.61/2014 OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 30-11-2015 CRIME NO. 587/2007 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

MANESH @ MANU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, MANKARA VEEDU, KUNJAYINI DESOM, EDAVILANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶10

SRI.AMJAD ALI SMT.NITHYA SASI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 2501 of 2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶19

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.587/2007 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION.

¶20

ANNEXUREB: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.30.11.2015 IN SC NO.61/2014 (LPR 19/2014) OF COURT OF PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶27

- - - - Crl.M.C. No. 2501 of 2016

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.606 of 2013 on the files of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda involving offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case is now pending as LP R 13 / 2014 on the files of the said court.

¶30

The above case had arisen from Crime No 587 of 2007 of the Kodungallloor Police Station . There were originally 4 accused in the said crime and the petitioner herein was arrayed as the 2^nd accused. The prosecution allegation is that on 15.7.2007 at 2.15 p.m., the accused in furtherance of their common intention, intercepted the bus bearing registration No KL 12 B 3935 and assaulted CW 1 and CW 2 in the said case with a reaper.

¶31

Investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the Case was later committed to the Court of Session and was taken on file as S.C.No.385 of 2008. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 alone appeared and

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.2501 of 2016 -2-

¶33

faced the trial. They were acquitted after a full fledged trial holding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

¶34

The case against accused Nos. 2 and 4 were renumbered as S.C.No.370 of 2011 and later the case was transferred to the list of long pending cases and numbered as L.P.No.19 of 2012. While so the accused No.4 surrendered before court and the case against him was proceeded with as S.C.No.61 of 2014 on the files of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda.

¶35

As per Annexure B judgment dated 30.11.2015, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that there was no evidence worth the name as against accused No.4 and he was acquitted under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

¶36

The Petitioner has now approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code on the ground that the substratum of the case as against the petitioner has been destroyed in view of the acquittal of the accused 1, 2 and 4 in separate trials.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Annexure B judgment submitted that PW1 to PW 4

¶38

Crl.M.C. No.2501 of 2016 -3-

¶39

were examined before the Court below to prove the prosecution case. PW 1 is the first informant and one of the injured and he testified that he was unable to identify the accused. PW 2, who is another eye witness also did not support the prosecution case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after evaluation of the evidence, concluded that there was no material on record to connect any of the accused.

¶40

The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552) and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 812) to contend that as the substratum of case being destroyed there is no point in pursuing the prosecution as against the other accused.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents.

¶42

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

¶43

552) a Full Bench of this Court had occassion to hold in para 50 of the said Judgement in the following manner:

¶44

“50 .................. At the same time, 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

¶45

Crl.M.C. No.2501 of 2016 -4-

¶46

to be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself. It may however, be a case where the very substratum of the case is lost which may be an exception to this rule. However, as held by the apex court it has to be held that even when a coaccused is acquitted in the very same trial, the other accused can be convicted if there are good reasons to do so. In other words, the acquittal of some of the accused by itself is not a reason to bar the trial in the case of the other accused.”

¶47

11 . In Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2)

¶48

KHC 812) it was held by this Court in the facts of that case that

¶49

that when substratum of the case is destroyed, there is no point in pursuing with the prosecution as against the other accused.

¶50

12 . I have anxiously gone through Annexure B judgement

¶51

of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge . The learned counsel is justified in submitting that no materials were before court to connect the accused with the crime. None of the witnesses had supported the prosecution case and they had gone to the extent of deposing that they could not identify the culprits.

¶52

I am of the view that the continuance of the prosecution as against the petitioner will not serve any purpose as the prospects of conviction is quite bleak. Though the

¶53

Crl.M.C. No.2501 of 2016 -5-

¶54

judgment rendered in the case of a coaccused and the reasoning of the judgment contained 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 is an exception to the above rule.

¶55

In the result this petition is allowed. All further proceedings pending against the petitioner herein in L.P.No.13 of 2014 shall stand quashed.

¶56

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶57

kp/-6.6.16

Manesh @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manesh @ Manu 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

Ibrahim C.H Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Azeez Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim C.H Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafar Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Babu @ Prasanth Vs Kaladharan

Ramesh Rai Vs State of Kerala