Allowed

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2019CRL.A/25/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the criminal appeal, acquitting the appellant. The court held that unexplained delay in producing contraband and an investigation report, combined with lack of safe custody evidence, entitled the appellant to a benefit of doubt, setting aside the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the appellant; setting aside conviction and sentence; discharge of bail bond.

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

CRL.A.No.25 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 725/2004 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE DATED 12-12-2006

¶7

APPELLANT/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAMACHANDRAN

¶9

S/O. CHANGARAN, THEKKE VALIYA PARAMBIL MEETHAL, P.O.KEEZHARIYOOR, KOZHUKKALLUR,, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P

¶11

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

SRI.E.C.BINEESH,PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CRL.A.No.25 of 2007

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the court below under Section 55 (a) of the Abkari Act.

¶19

The prosecution allegation is that on 25.12.2001 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant was found in possession of 3 litres of arrack in contravention of the provisions of the

¶20

Abkari Act.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since there was delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that since there was inordinate delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt on that

¶23

CRL.A.No.25 of 2007

¶24

¶25

reason as well.

¶26

It appears that the incident in this case was on 25.12.2001. Ext.P4 property list would show that the contraband article and the sample were produced before the court only on 28.12.2001. PW4 was the Excise Inspector, who conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the court. PW4 stated that PW4 was not aware of the cause for the delay in producing the sample before the court. There is absolutely no explanation from the side of the prosecution to justify the delay in producing the contraband and the sample before the court. There is also no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the contraband and the sample till their production before the court. The delay as such is not always fatal. However, even if the delay is for a day, if it is not explained, the same is fatal to the prosecution case. In this case, there was unexplained

¶27

¶28

CRL.A.No.25 of 2007

¶29

delay from 25.12.2001 to 28.12.2001 in producing the contraband and the sample before the court. Since there was unexplained delay from 25.12.2001 to 28.12.2001 in producing the sample before the court, there cannot be any guarantee that the sample produced before the court and analysed in the laboratory was the sample drawn from the contraband seized from the appellant, particularly when there is no evidence with regard to the safe custody of the sample till its production before the court. In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶30

It is also to be noted that there was a delay of 2 ½ years in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the court. In Krishnan.H v. State [2015 (1) KHC 822], this court held that long and unexplained delay in conducting the investigation, in the absence of sufficient explanation, is fatal to the prosecution. In this case, the final

¶31

¶32

CRL.A.No.25 of 2007

¶33

report was filed before the court only on 24.06.2004 after completing the investigation. No explanation was given by the prosecution as to why there was delay in conducting the investigation and filing the final report before the court. In

¶34

the said circumstances also, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

¶35

In the result, this criminal appeal stands allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and the appellant stands acquitted. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

RK/05.07.2019

Ramachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran 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

Vinodan Vs State of Kerala

Veluchamy Kounder Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vs State of Kerala