Allowed

Remitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018Crl.MC/2469/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed a criminal misc. case. The petitioner, alleging caste-based abuse and photographing occurred in public view, challenged a final report that excluded SC/ST Atrocities Act charges. The court held the incident happened in public view and investigation was flawed due to low officer rank and missing evidence.

What did the court decide?

Final report is quashed. First and second respondents directed to entrust further investigation to another officer not below the rank of DYSP.

Remitha Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2469 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 997/2016 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

REMITHA

¶9

AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.BALU, RESIDING AT ARAYASSERIL HOUSE, KUMBALAM FERRY, EDAKOCHI

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.BIJU SRI.K.R.SAJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶13

ERNKULAM-682031

¶14

2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOCHIN CITY

¶15

ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶16

3. SI OF POLICE

¶17

PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION-682006

¶18

4. SHAJI

¶19

63 YEARS, S/O.RAMA GOPAL, ARAYASSERIYIL HOUSE,

¶20

KUMBALAM FERRY, EDAKOCHI-691503

¶21

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 2469 of 2018 ()

¶24

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME 997/16 ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME 997/16 ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME 997/16 ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE CMP 1878/17 ANNEXURE 5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-3-18 ANNEXURE 6 THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶27

R.AV //TRUE COPY//

¶28

PA TO JUDGE

¶29

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2469 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2018

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No.997/2016 of Palluruthy Police Station. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. According to her, on 29.5.2016 at 12 noon, while she was cleaning the courtyard of her residence, the fourth respondent who is a distinct relative and neighbour took her photograph on his mobile and this was questioned. He abused her by calling her caste name. She laid a complaint alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 119A of the Kerala Police Act and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the fourth respondent. Complaint was laid, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was filed. According to the petitioner herein, final report was filed under section 294(b) alone.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.2469 of 2018

¶35

¶36

This is assailed by the petitioner contending that the police did not conduct proper investigation. Though, offences under section SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were alleged. The investigation was conducted by SI of Police, that the mobile phone used was not seized and there was serious infraction in the procedure adopted by the investigating officer.

¶37

On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor referred to the statement filed by the SHO. It was submitted that initially investigation was conducted by the DySP, who reported that there was nothing to show that the alleged incident happened in the public view. Hence the offences under section SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was deleted. Thereafter further investigation was conducted by SI of Police. He examined two witnesses, who had given statement about the quarrel that took place on that day, though they stated that they did not hear the showering of

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.2469 of 2018

¶39

¶40

abuses, using of caste name or even taking of the photograph.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the version of CW2 and CW3. Both of them have seen an altercation going on between the defacto complainant and the fourth respondent. Though there is a version that one witness had not seen photographs being taken, the other person could not hear the exact words spoken. However, the version of CW2 and CW3 clearly shows that whatever incident transpired were within the visibility of the witness. The word public view as mentioned in the Act has to receive a reasonable explanation that the act was committed at a place which can be seen either by the witness, or heard, so as to constitute that the act was committed in public view. Having considered this, the conclusion arrived at by the DYSP that the act was not committed within public view cannot be sustained. Further, it is also not

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2469 of 2018

¶43

¶44

clear on what basis section 119 of the KP Act was deleted. It also seems that the investigation was not properly conducted, since the alleged mobile phone was not recovered. Having considered this I feel that the final report is not legally sustainable. It is liable to be quashed. Necessarily, the investigation has to be conducted by another officer not below the rank of DYSP or Kerala Police, since the allegation under section SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is alleged.

¶45

Hence the Crl.M.C is allowed. Final report is quashed and the first and second respondent are directed to entrust the further investigation with another officer not less than the rank of DYSP. Appropriate orders shall be issued at the earliest.

¶46

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶47

R.AV

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

PA to Judge

Remitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remitha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anilkumar Vs Shalini

Muhammed Shereef Vs State of Kerala

Dulcine Jochim Fonseca Vs State of Kerala

Marimuthu @ Sreedhar @ Mohammed Ashraf Vs the Inspector of Police

Madhu v. Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala