Dismissed

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/367/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition dismissed. The Kerala High Court held that the Sessions Judge correctly altered the charge to attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC based on evidence of intent and circumstances, finding no material irregularity or failure of justice warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, and the order altering the charge to Section 307 IPC was affirmed.

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.367 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2018 IN CRL.M.P. NO.7/2018 IN SC 369/2015 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(ADDL), PALAKKAD

¶7

CRIME NO.177/2014 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ANEESH, S/O. CHANDRAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KUNNAMKADU HOUSE, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SMT.ANU JACOB SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶14

SRI. M. S. BREEZ SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.367 of 2018

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein is the accused in SC No.369 of 2015 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge (Additional) Palakkad. He was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 324, 326 and 308 of the IPC.

¶20

It appears that after prosecution evidence was complete, an application was filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor contending that the prosecution evidence as well as materials disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the IPC. It was prayed that invoking the powers under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., the charge be altered and the offence under Section 307 be incorporated. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the materials and the medical evidence, altered the charge under Section 308 of the IPC to Section 307 of the IPC. The said order is under challenge.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the prosecution allegations would not attract the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel, in order to amount to an attempt to murder, the act attempted must be such that if not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause death of the victim. In the case on hand, no

¶22

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.367 of 2018

¶23

¶24

such material was available to alter the charge to a graver offence.

¶25

Heard the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, who refuted the submissions. It is submitted that serious injuries were inflicted by the petitioner on the victim, who was the father of the girl, upon whom the petitioner had an infatuation. The petitioner had trespassed into his house and had inflicted injuries with a chopper. When he attempted to inflict a blow on the head, the victim defended with his right hand and his thumb was completely amputated. He then flashed the chopper towards the head of the victim. The injured took evasive action and sustained injuries on his left hand. Thereafter, the petitioner chopped on his right leg and when the victim fell down, he sat on his chest and assaulted him. According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the intention to murder the victim is clearly borne out from the circumstances, the evidence of witnesses and the nature of injuries sustained. It is further urged that to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, there is no requirement that serious injuries on the vital parts of the body should be sustained.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶27

Having gone through the records and after considering the

¶28

submissions advanced, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the

¶29

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.367 of 2018

¶30

¶31

impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., the court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. The section mandates that such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. The alteration of the charge would be subject to sub-sections (3) to (5) of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the trial Judge to alter or amend the charge, when in the course of a trial, he finds at any time before judgment is pronounced that the trial has proceeded on imperfect or erroneous charge.

¶32

In order that a person be held guilty of attempt to murder,

¶33

two ingredients are to be satisfied.

¶34

(a) An intention or knowledge of committing murder;

¶35

(b) The doing of an act towards it.

¶36

For the purpose of Section 307 of the IPC, what is material is the intention or knowledge and not the consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. The said section contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death, but which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of

¶37

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.367 of 2018 5

¶38

the accused. In other words, the considerations that are essential to be borne in mind are (i) the nature of the act done (ii) the intention or knowledge of the accused and (iii) the circumstances under which the act is done.

¶39

In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge, on the strength of the evidence adduced before the court below, came to the conclusion that the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC are made out. I find no reason to interfere with the said order. It is trite that only in those cases, wherein the aggrieved person is able to show that there is a glaring defect in the procedural aspect or a manifest error on a point of law, resulting in a flagrant miscarriage of justice that exercise of revisional jurisdiction is called for. The revisional court is not an appellate forum, wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible; neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible. It does not appear that the court below has committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned order. It is by now settled that if the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional

¶40

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.367 of 2018

¶41

¶42

jurisdiction. I am afraid that the petitioner herein has not been able to satisfy that any such eventuality has arisen in the instant case warranting interference.

¶43

This petition will stand dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶46

IAP

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh 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

P.K.Shajahan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

Sajan, Vs Devarajan

Anil.K.R. Vs Manakkodam Raveendran Vaidyar

Babu @ Praveen, Vs State of Kerala

Vishak Chandra Vs State of Kerala