The High Court of Kerala granted bail and quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that since co-accused were acquitted for lack of evidence, continuing the trial against the petitioner was futile and served no purpose.
Petition allowed; criminal proceedings (C.C.No.742 of 2012) against the petitioner quashed.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 5798 of 2016 ()
AGAINST CC 742/2012 of J.F.C.M,THIRUVALLA CRIME NO. 187/2003 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA
PETITIONERS/4TH ACCUSED :
ALOSIOUS S/O SEBASTIAN THAZHCHAYIL PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PARUMALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULIKEEZHU 689101
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2111-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 5798 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVALLA ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2011 IN CC 1098/2003 ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2012 IN CC 333/2011
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
Crl.M.C. No. 5798 of 2016
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016
O R D E R
-----------
Crl.M.C.5798/2016
2
except the 5th accused absconded. By judgment dated 31.5.2011, the 5th accused was found not guilty of the offence and was acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case against accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 were re-filed as C.C.No.333 of 2011.
Crl.M.C.5798/2016
3
on the decisions of this Court in Moosa V Sub Inspector of Polic e [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336] , Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] would submit that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.
8.I have gone through Annexure-A final report as well as Annexures-B and C judgments of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out from the judgments that none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed in tune with the prosecution case. The Court below after meticulous analysis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no evidence worth the name to connect the accused with the crime .
Crl.M.C.5798/2016
4
or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.
10.I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely remote as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-A final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as C.C.No.742 of 2012 on the file
Crl.M.C.5798/2016
5
of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thiruvalla are
quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE
vps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed where the substratum of the case is shattered by the acquittal of co-accused.
Whether continued trial would serve any purpose given the lack of evidence against the accused.
Whether Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies when prior acquittals render the prosecution case untenable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa V Sub Inspector of PoliceRelied on¶37
Moosa V Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLJ 349]
Abbas T.K. V State of KeralaRelied on¶37
Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336]
Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of KeralaRelied on¶37
Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177]
Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of KeralaRelied on¶37
Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ALOSIOUS S/O SEBASTIAN THAZHCHAYIL PUTHENVEETTIL
STATE OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
