Dismissed

Beena v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019Crl.Rev.Pet/3671/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision petition, examined the Sessions Court's order discharging certain accused in a case alleging offences under IPC and the POCSO/Atrocities Act regarding separate incidents. The Court found the view on non-joinder of charges reasonable and dismissed the revision, vacating an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed; the interim stay was vacated; and the Sessions Court was directed to expedite the trial within 2-3 months.

Beena Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

CRL.REV.PET.NO.3671 OF 2008

¶6

SC 43/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

BEENA, W/O.G.K.VENU, VEDIKA, AYANIKKAD P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED:

¶11

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

¶12

2 K.SAHAJANANDAN, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA, P.O.PUTHUR.

¶13

3 P.K.SATHEESH, P.D.TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA, P.O.PUTHUR, VADAKARA.

¶14

4 V.K.RAJAN, H.S.A.(HINDI), GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VADAKARA, P.O. PUTHUR, VADAKARA.

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

Crl.R.P. No. 3671 of 2008

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The Revision Petitioner herein had filed a complaint against the respondents 2 to 4 alleging offences punishable under Secs. 354 & 500 of the IPC and Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Charges against CWs 1 to 6 were examined on oath and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Thereafter at the stage of framing the charges, accused numbers 2 and 3 were discharged mainly on the ground that the offences alleging against them as per Sec.500 of the IPC cannot be jointly tried along with the offences alleged against A1. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Court has held in the impugned order dated 5.9.2018 that the charge can be framed only as against A1 for the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Sec.354 of the IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is this order rendered on 5.9.2018 by

¶22

..3..

¶23

Crl.R.P. No. 3671 of 2008

¶24

the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in S.C.No.43/2007 that is under challenge in this case.

¶25

Heard Sri.K.A.Salil Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/complainant and Sri.Saiji Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent State. Though notices have been duly served to respondents 2 & 4, the parties have not entered appearance. Notice process on R-3 has not been completed. In the nature of orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-3 will stand dispensed with.

¶26

It is common ground that the allegations regarding the offences under Sec. 500 of the IPC which is directed as against A2 and A3 is in relation to the incident which took place in 20.10.2004 whereas, in respect of the offences under Sec.354 of the IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which are directed as against A1 are said to have taken place on 2.8.2004. The second incident which occurred on 20.10.2004 has taken place in a different place and that too after a lapse of 2 months after the occurrence of the first incident

¶27

..4..

¶28

Crl.R.P. No. 3671 of 2008

¶29

on 2.8.2004. Therefore the Sessions Court has rightly held that the second incident had nothing to do with the first incident in respect of the abovesaid offences concerned and hence it was held that the offences as per Sec.500 of the IPC which is directed as against A2 and A3 which is in respect of the lateral incident took place on 20.10.2004, cannot be tried along with the other two offences as per Sec.354 of the IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in respect of the former incident which happened on 2.8.2004 etc, and that no joint charges as per Sec.500 of the IPC can be proceeded with this case as the very basis and nature of allegations in respect of these two separate incidents are different and the cause of the action is also different, and hence it does not form a part of same transaction so as to justify joint trial in respect of matters in relation to such offences. The said view rendered by the Sessions Court appears to be eminently reasonable and fair, and at any rate it cannot be branded as perverse or unreasonable. It is in the light of these aspects that the Sessions Court has decided as per the

¶30

..5..

¶31

Crl.R.P. No. 3671 of 2008

¶32

impugned order that no charge can be framed as against A2 and A3 in this case, and the charge could be framed only as against A1 for the abovesaid allegation of commission of offence under Sec.354 of the IPC and Sec.3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the Sessions court has granted liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint alleging commission of offences under Sec.500 of the IPC, if so advice and in accordance with law.

¶33

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (complainant) and learned Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent State, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for. The interim stay granted by this court in this case stands vacated.

¶34

The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, who is dealing with the S.C.No. 43/2007 so that the matter could be proceeded without any further delay. Having regard to the time taken for the pendency of this petition it is ordered in the justice that the Sessions Court

¶35

Crl.R.P. No. 3671 of 2008

¶36

..6..

¶37

concerned may take all reasonable endeavors possible to ensure that the trial in respect of S.C.No. 43/2007 is expedited without much delay, so that the same could be completed preferably within a period of 2 to 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶41

MMG

Beena v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena 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

Jagjith Vs Dhanya C.T.

Rugmini Vs State of Kerala

K.Sankaran Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Damayanthi Vs State of Kerala

Bhagyanath Vs State of Kerala

Navas K Vs State of Kerala