High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner (14th accused) where the main trial court acquittal of co-accused and hostile witnesses destroyed the case substratum, applying Moosa principles under Section 482 CrPC.
Further proceedings in S.C. No.1440/2019 against the petitioner are quashed.
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 ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
CRIME NO.400/2001 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam SC 1440/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/14TH ACCUSED:
NAJUMUDEEN
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, CHARUVILA VEEDU,
PATHIRIKKAL MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 689695.
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689695.
BY ADV
ADV M.P. PRASHANTH – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
2
ORDER
The petitioner is the 14th accused in crime No.400/2001 of Pathanapuram Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 332, 324, 307,427, 283 and 188 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 32 (e) of Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, 1984.
3
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
arrayed as accused persons. The other accused remained unidentified. The petitioner was the 14th accused therein. Upon the matter being committed, the trial was conducted by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) II, Kollam in S.C. Nos.304/2009, 596/2009, 106/2010, 214/2011 and 733/2011, in which 26 accused persons participated. Annexure 3 is the common judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the aforesaid case, and the outcome was that all the accused persons who faced the trial were found not guilty, and accordingly, they were acquitted. The case against the petitioner has been split up and is now pending as S.C. No.1440/2019 before the Additional Sessions Court, V Kollam. This Crl.M.C. is filed for quashing all further proceedings in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
for the petitioner and Sri.M.P. Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
4
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, will have the impact of destroying the substratum of the prosecution case. Reliance was also placed on the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552]
5
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
Officers. The observations in Annexure 3 would reveal that, even the aforesaid witness could not identify the accused persons as there were 500 persons gathered in the place of occurrence while the incident occurred. The only identification was that of the 1st accused by the said witnesses. But despite the same, the learned Sessions Court did not rely upon the said evidence and even the said accused was also acquitted. A categorical finding has been entered by the learned Sessions Judge to the effect that the identification among the 500 persons who gathered was practically not possible by the said witnesses. It is also evident from the records that the accused persons who were identified were not arrested on the spot. Thus, the nature of the evidence that the prosecution has adduced, appreciation thereof made by the learned Sessions Judge in Annexure 3 and the conclusion arrived based on the same would indicate that, the substratum of the case itself is lost. Therefore, further prosecution against the petitioner would be a futile exercise; hence, this is a fit case in which the powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by applying the principles
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
6
laid down by this Court in Moosa’s case (cited supra).
In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure
2 Final Report submitted in Crime No.400/2001 of Pathanapuram Police Station further proceedings in S.C. No.1440/2019 on the file of Additional Sessions Court V, Kollam as against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
scs
CRL.MC NO. 386 OF 2022
7
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 386/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.400/2001 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE
STATION DATED 1.11.2001.
Annexure 2THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT
IN CRIME NO. 400/2001 OF PATHANAPURAM
POLICE STATION, DATED 20.11.2003.
Annexure 3THE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
(ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM DATED 27.06.2013 IN
SC NOS.304/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether further prosecution proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed given the acquittal of co-accused and loss of substratum of the case.
Whether the acquittal of other accused in the same chargesheet justifies quashing the proceedings against the accused who was separately tried.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of PoliceApplied¶29
Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006(1) KLT 552]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NAJUMUDEEN
STATE OF KERALA
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court