Raju, v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed criminal revision petition and discharged accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., finding substratum of prosecution case dislodged as co-accused acquitted and no independent allegations proved against petitioner.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner discharged under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. as prosecution case against co-accused not proved.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
CRL.REV.PET NO. 651 OF 2020
CRIME NO.440/2006 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 IN CRL.M.P.NO.6264 OF 2018 IN CC 9513/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:
RAJU,
AGED 34 YEARS S/O.RAVI,NEEROLI HOUSE,MOORKKANAD DESOM, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR-679338.
BY ADVS. VIDYA KURIAKOSE SRI.V.SREEJITH (K/1398/2000) SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. given the failure of prosecution case against co-accused.
Whether independent overt acts separable from co-accused can be presumed against the petitioner based on unlawful assembly allegation.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
RAJU
- respondent
STATE
Coram
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court