Petitioner challenged quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC after co-accused were acquitted due to total failure of prosecution evidence. Court held substratum lost and quashed pending proceedings.
Annexure-AII final report and all proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.587 of 2015 are 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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 6238 of 2016 ()
SC.43/2014 NOW PENDING AS SC 587/2015 OF ADDITIONAL & SESSIONS COURT - II, KASARAGOD. CRIME NO.1/2012 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
PRAVEEN, AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDRAN, MADIKKAL, PULLUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
Crl.MC.No. 6238 of 2016 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
| ANNEXURE AI: | A TRUE COPY OF THE OF AMBALATHARA PO |
F.I.R.IN CRIME NO.1 OF 2012 LICE STATION. |
|---|---|---|
| ANNEXURE AII: | A TRUE COPY OF THE 2012 OF AMBALATHAR |
FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1 OF A POLICE STATION. |
| ANNEXURE AIII: | A TRUE COPY OF THE | JUDGMENT DATED 18.2.2016 IN |
| S.C.NO.43 OF 2014 | OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND | |
| SESSIONS JUDGE-II, | KASARAGOD. |
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V., J.
Crl.M.C. No. 6238 of 2016
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2016
O R D E R
~~~~~~~~
2.The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.587 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Kasaragod. The aforesaid case has originated from Crime No.1 of 2012 registered by the Ambalathara Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 506(ii), 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Crl.M.C. No. 6238 of 2016 -2-
was committed to the Court of Session as S.C.No.43 of 2014. As many as five persons were arrayed as the accused in the final report and the petitioner was the accused No.3. The petitioner absconded and was not available for trial. Case against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 6 were proceeded with and by Annexure-III judgment dated 18.2.2016, they were found not guilty of the offence and were acquitted of all charges.
Crl.M.C. No. 6238 of 2016 -3-
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.
7.I have gone through Annexure-AII final report as well as Annexure-AIII judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out from Annexure-AIII 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 the accused were entitled to acquittal under Section 232 of the Code.
Crl.M.C. No. 6238 of 2016 -4-
the reasoning of the judgment contained 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.
9.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-AII final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the
Crl.M.C. No. 6238 of 2016 -5-
petitioner now pending as S.C.No.587 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Kasaragod are quashed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V. JUDGE
Ps/31/10/16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed given the acquittal of co-accused and total failure of prosecution evidence.
Whether the exception for lost substratum of the case applies when none of the prosecution witnesses deposed in tune with the prosecution case.
Whether directing the accused to face trial would serve any purpose when prospects of conviction are extremely remote.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceDistinguished¶37
Moosa V Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLJ 349]
Abbas T.K. v. State of KeralaReferred¶37
Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336]
Jalalu Rajan and Anr. v. State of KeralaReferred¶37
Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177]
Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of KeralaReferred¶37
Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812]
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceDistinguished¶41
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Praveen
State of Kerala
Raja Vijayaraghavan
V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Raja Vijayaraghavan and V
Parties & counsel
