Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020OP(Crl.)/368/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Kerala set aside the order of the Magistrate rejecting defence electronic records. It clarified that Section 65B certification is procedural and can be relaxed in the interest of justice, following Shafhi Mohammad, remanding the case for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Magistrate rejecting electronic records is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. Parties to appear on 07.01.2021.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.368 OF 2020 (Q)

¶6

CC 394/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA

¶7

CRIME NO.1833/2014 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/o KRISHNAKURUPPU, MUDIYIL THAZHATHIL VEEDU, AAYIKKUNNAM MURI, SOORANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 522.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN MANI

¶11

SHRI.S.JAYANT SHRI.VARGHESE SABU SHRI.SETHULAKSHMI K.K.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHOORANAD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-690 522.

¶15

3 JACOB THOMAS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY SECTION NO.1., KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. RESIDING AT JISHA BHAVAN, PLAVILA, PULIPPARA MUKK, MULAVANNA MURI, KUNDARA MULAVANNA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 503

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. D. CHANDRASENAN

¶17

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(Crl) No.368 of 2020

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Electronic records produced at the defence stage

¶22

was rejected by the learned Magistrate mainly on two grounds that it was produced in a belated stage and that it did not satisfy the mandate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act due to lack of

¶23

certification.

¶24

The question of defence evidence would commence

¶25

only after the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and not earlier. The said basic principle was not adhered to by the learned Magistrate while rejecting defence evidence produced viz. electronic records.

¶26

The mandate under Section 65B though found to be mandatory by a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others [AIR 2015 SC 180 = 2014 KHC 4602 = 2014 (4) KLT 104 = 2014 (10) SCC 473] , a subsequent two Bench of the Apex Court in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2018 (2)

¶27

KHC 80 (SC)] clarified the legal position that the

¶28

O.P.(Crl) No.368 of 2020 3

¶29

requirement of certification under Section 65B(h) of

¶30

the Act is always not mandatory and that the requirement of certification being procedural can be relaxed by the courts wherever interest of justice so justifies. Hence, the order of the Magistrate is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with the clarification made in Shafhi Mohammad's case (supra). The parties shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 07.01.2021.

¶31

The original petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

O.P.(Crl) No.368 of 2020

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2014.
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1833 OF 2014 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.1833 OF 2014 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED UNDER S.65(B) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT.
EXHIBIT	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
	MAGISTRATE COURT (TEMPORARY), SASTHAMCOTTAH IN CMP NO.2219/2020 IN CC NO.394/2015.
EXHIBIT	P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF
	PETITIONER DIGGING SOIL AROUND 9.45 A.M.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: NIL.

¶42

// TRUE COPY //

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Rajeev K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Joykutty Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Nazeema Beevi Vs State of Kerala

Thulasidharan Nair Vs Diamond Village Kuries

Raj Kapoor Vs State of Kerala

Samuel Kutty T.O Vs State of Kerala