A criminal revision petition filed by the 6th accused against a discharge petition. The Court noted the nature of the anti-abkari violence and the victim's death. It held that a clear nexus existed among the incidents and dismissed the revision petition upholding the lower courts' frames of charge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 30TH ASWINA, 1942
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.63 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 735/2017 OF ADDITIONAL S.C.-TRIAL OF ABKARI ACT CASES,NEYYATTINKARA
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 1/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,NEYYATTINKARA (TEMPORARY)
CRIME NO.1844/2016 OF Nemom Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/SIXTH ACCUSED:
ABU SHAKEER @ PODIYAN
AGED 36 YEARS A.J HOUSE, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020
BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOCHI, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031
ADDL.2 KABEER, S/O.MUHAMMED KARIM, AGED 56, KOLLAMPAZHINJI JUNCTION, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 020 (RESPONDENT No.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 IN CMA 3/2020)
R1 BY ADV. SRI. SURESH BABU THOMAS, FOR ADDL.DGP 2 BY ADV. M.SREEKUMAR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.63 OF 2020
2
ORDER
The accused No.6 came up to quash the FIR under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 341, 323,
302 r/w Section 149 IPC.
and counter attack happened on the same day involving three incidents. In the first
incident, the accused No.6 was attacked by one Rafeek and others. In the second incident,
the said Rafeek was attacked by some of the close relatives and associates of accused No.6 while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. On the same day, the victim in the second incident Rafeek was also removed to the very same hospital, wherein accused No.6 was undergoing treatment. On seeing the above said Rafeek, who was taken to the hospital in a stretcher, accused No.6 fisted on his body by uttering the words ' നനചതതല ല ലടട'.
3
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.63 OF 2020
Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another ((2017) 3 SCC 330), Thambi v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KLT 34), Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another (2017 KHC 6522), it was argued that there should be a sufficient ground to proceed further under Section 227 Cr.P.C. Going by the incident alleged, prima facie , it appears that there is no reason for interference by way of revision. According to the prosecution, the cause root for the second incident originated from the first incident and when the victim was brought to the hospital in a stretcher, he was attacked by accused No.6 by uttering a reference on the attack made to kill him and fisted on his
body. Prima facie , a clear nexus between the
first, second and third incident is evident. As such, the framing of charge for the offences under Section 302 and 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 341, 323 r/w Section 149 IPC cannot be
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.63 OF 2020
4
interfered with. Dismissal of discharge
petition hence deserves no interference.
Crl.R.P. is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a sufficient ground to interfere with the lower court's order refusing to quash the FIR or discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
Whether a prima facie case exists given the nexus between incidents of alleged attack and counter-attack involving the accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mauvin Godinho and Others v. State of GoaReferred¶29
Mauvin Godinho and Others v. State of Goa (2018 KHC 6058)
Ajay Singh and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and AnotherReferred¶29
Ajay Singh and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another ((2017) 3 SCC 330) · Who else cites this
Thambi v. State of KeralaReferred¶29
Thambi v. State of Kerala (2016 (1) KLT 34)
Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and AnotherReferred¶29
Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another (2017 KHC 6522)
ABU SHAKEER @ PODIYAN
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOCHI
ADDL.2 KABEER
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
