Allowed

Ani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2019OP(Crl.)/224/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dismissing his plea to reopen the case for adducing defense evidence to prove the building charged in the offense did not exist. High Court held the plea was not irrelevant and set aside the order to allow evidence to be tendered.

What did the court decide?

Set aside of the impugned order dismissing the plea to reopen the case; direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to permit the defense to adduce evidence regarding the existence of the building.

Ani Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 26TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

OP(Crl.).No. 224 of 2017

¶6

AGAINSST THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN CMP NO.162/2017 IN CRIME NO.65/2014 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER CCL:

¶8

ANI

¶9

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, RESIDING AT ATTUPURAM VEEDU, KULATHUR VILLAGE, KULATHUR DESOM

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

PP-SMT.SHEEBA.K.K.

¶17

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(CRL) No.224/2017

¶19

¶20

T.V.ANILKUMAR, J. --------------------------------O.P.(Crl.)No.224 of 2017

¶21

---------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The 2^nd CCL in ST 78/2015 on the file of the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvananthapuram challenges the impugned order on CMP No.162/2017 passed by the Board on 20.3.2017 dismissing his plea for re-opening the case for evidence and adducing evidence on his side.

¶24

On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner, the 2^nd CCL was being prosecuted before the Board for offences punishable under Section 452 and 427 of IPC. The impugned order shows that after the entire evidence has been recorded, the petitioner sought to reopen the case for defence

¶25

O.P.(CRL) No.224/2017

¶26

¶27

purporting to invoke power of the Board under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C and to examine a defense witness and also to receive in evidence Ext.P3 copy of reply issued from the office of the Secretary, Kulathoor Grama Panchayat. The Board by the impugned order, dismissed the petition for re-opening the case for evidence holding that the evidence sought to be tendered did not appear to be relevant for the decision of the case.

¶28

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The prosecution case appears to be that the petitioner along with the first CCL trespassed into house building and committed mischief there to. The defense case appears to be that there is no house in existence as mentioned in the scene mahazzar prepared by the Pozhiyoor Police as on 26.1.2014. The building number mentioned in the scene mahazzar is XIII/546, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in existence as per the records kept in the local Panchayat. In order to substantiate this contention, he obtained, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, a reply from the Secretary of Kulathoor Grama Panchayat indicating that there were only 346 buildings as per the assessment

¶30

O.P.(CRL) No.224/2017

¶31

¶32

register maintained by the said Panchayat. He also sought to examine the Secretary of the Kulathoor Grama Panchayat on the side of the defense to prove the information collected.

¶33

On appreciating the materials on record it appears to me that the evidence sought to be tendered by the petitioner cannot be rejected as irrelevant. When the every existence of the building is under challenge, the interest of justice demands that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to tender the evidence which he proposes. Therefore, I find my way difficult to uphold the impugned order. In the circumstances, the order requires interference and is liable to be set aside.

¶34

In the result, this O.P is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 20.3.2017 in CMP 162/2017 in ST No.78/2015 on the files of the Juvenile Justice Board, Thiruvananthapuram. The Juvenile Justice Board will permit the 2^nd CCL to adduce evidence which he sought to bring and take them also on record before pronouncing final verdict in the case. There will also be a direction to the court below to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate not exceeding within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of judgment before that court. It is made clear that this

¶35

O.P.(CRL) No.224/2017

¶36

¶37

Court has not expressed any view on merits of the case and the court

¶38

below will be a liberty to decide the case strictly in accordance with

¶39

law and evidence on record.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR,

JUDGE

al/-

O.P.(CRL) No.224/2017

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR DATED 26.1.2014 IN CRIME NO.65/2014 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCENE MAHZAR DATED 26.1.2014 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 12.7.2016 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE IN S.T.NO.78/2015 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN CMP NO.162/2017 IN CRIME NO. 65/2014 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION.

¶49

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶50

TRUE COPY

¶51

P.S TO JUDGE

¶52

AL/-

Ani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ani 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

Praveen Kumar Vs Aneesha

Geejai Sivaprakash Vs Sreedevi S

Kunjikrishnan Nair Vs Chandrika Kumari

Senmon P.V Vs Showniya P.T

Gopakumar Vs Maya. K.G

Aparna Vs Kannan @ Vishnu