Allowed

Haleel Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2021Crl.MC/827/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala granted special leave under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that after co-accused were acquitted in two separate trials due to evidence failures, further trial against the petitioner would be futile, leading to his exoneration.

What did the court decide?

Entire proceedings in S.C. No. 128 of 2021 are quashed and the petitioner shall stand exonerated.

Haleel Muhammed Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 827 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN LP 4/2006 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

¶7

COURT,THODUPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

HALEEL MUHAMMED AGED 42 YEARS S/O.HABEEB MUHAMMED, BLOCK NO.500, CHOTTUPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT685552. BY ADV E.A.HARIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR.PP - SRI. HIRTHWIK C.S.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT

¶15

ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.M.C. No. 827 of 2021

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the original 10^th accused in Crime No. 268 of 2002 of Peermedu police station which was registered on 23.09.2002 alleging offence punishable under Sections 143,

¶20

147, 148, 452, 308, 326,324 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶21

The allegation is that, on 22.09.2002 at 24 hours,

¶22

accused persons, twelve in number, had formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object trespassed upon the residential premises of the de facto complainant Krishnan and the 1^st accused had assaulted him with a chopper and caused him grievous hurt; accused numbers 2 and 7 also assaulted him and caused him injuries. It is also stated that his wife, CW2, Suja in the charge sheet was assaulted by them. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Peermedu. Thereafter, on committal, the case reached Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. Annexure A2 is the judgment in which accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6,

¶23

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 827 of 2021

¶25

8, and 12 faced trial. By the judgment dated 16^th June 2006, after a full fledged trial, after examining eleven witnesses, including the police officials, the Court acquitted them since the identity of the culprits was not proved. Later, by Annexure A3 judgment, accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 11 faced trial, and by the judgment dated 17^th December 2008, the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha acquitted them also. At that time, only four witnesses were examined and none of them did support the prosecution case.

¶26

The learned counsel submits that the 9^th accused is no more and the petitioner is the only remaining accused; as he was absconding, his case was transferred to the register of long-pending cases as L.P. No. 4 of 2006. Thereafter on 3^rd March 2021, he surrendered before the Sessions Court and his case stands refiled as S.C. No. 128 of 2021. He has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against him on the ground of acquittal of the

¶27

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 827 of 2021

¶29

co-accused.

¶30

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶31

As said earlier, Annexure A3 was rendered after full trial after examining as many as eleven witnesses including police officials. In that case, CWs 1 and 2 were examined as PWs 1 and 8 respectively. They are couple. Both of them though supported the prosecution case could not identify the culprits. The incident had happened at midnight. There was an identity crisis in the case. Thereafter in Annexure A3 trial, both were examined as PWs 1 and 2 respectively, but at that time they did not support the prosecution case at all. On that basis accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 11 were acquitted. In other words, after two trials, all of them were acquitted by the trial Court.

¶32

As noticed earlier, the incident had happened way back on 22.09.2002. Even though material witnesses were examined twice, they could not give positive evidence to convict the other

¶33

Crl.M.C. No. 827 of 2021

¶34

¶35

accused persons. The only remaining accused is the petitioner.

¶36

In the circumstances, it will be an exercise in futile to put him

¶37

on trial. Even if the witnesses are again called and examined, they may not be able to improve the prosecution case.

¶38

In the circumstances, entire proceedings in S.C. No.

¶39

128 of 2021 are quashed and the petitioner shall stand

¶40

exonerated.

¶41

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K. HARIPAL JUDGE

RMV/21/12/2021

6 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 827/2021

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN L.P.NO.04/2006 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA. ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.509/2003 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA. ANNEXURE 3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.522/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA.

¶47

TRUE COPY

¶48

P.A.TO JUDGE

Haleel Muhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haleel Muhammed 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.Raveendran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Nagaraja Vs the State of Kerala

Pradeep.K., Vs State of Kerala

Vinod @ Prav Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Sainudheen Vs State of Kerala

Jenson, Vs Jogela Shipping Company Limited