Dismissed

Aji P P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 May 2023Crl.MC/2336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the rejection of an application to recall child witnesses under the POCSO Act. The court upheld the trial court's finding that witnesses were already elaborately cross-examined, and no convincing reason existed to violate Section 33(5) to recall them under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking recall of witnesses for re-examination was dismissed as it lacked merit and violated the protective intent of the POCSO Act.

Aji P P Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MAY 2023 / 12TH VAISAKHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2336 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST CMP NOS.70/2023 91/2023 IN SC 592/2020 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, NADAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

AJI P P, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O CHAPPAN NAIR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KADAMERI, VILLIAPPILLY P O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106 BY ADVS. KRISHNADAS P. NAIR K.L.SREEKALA M.RAJESH KUMAR M.A.VINOD HARIDAS P.NAIR ANU PRABHAKAR SHINTO THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 680641 BY ADV PP -SMT BINDHU O V

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Crl.M.C.No.2336 of 2023

¶13

¶14

K.BABU, J .

¶15

Crl.M.C.No.2336 of 2023

¶16

Dated this the 2^nd day of May, 2023

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The challenge in this Criminal M.C is to the common order dated 28.02.2023 in C.M.P Nos.70/2023 and 91/2023 in S.C No.592/2020 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court, Nadapuram. The petitioner is the accused. He faces charges under the penal provisions of the POCSO Act.

¶19

The petitioner filed applications seeking to recall PWs 1 and

¶20

2 for further cross-examination on the ground that certain omissions and contradictions could not be put to those witnesses.

¶21

The Trial Court rejected the applications with the finding that the

¶22

witnesses were elaborately cross examined by the defence counsel.

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that re-

¶25

examination of PWs 1 and 2 is necessary to mark the contradictions

¶26

and omissions in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.2336 of 2023

¶28

¶29

It is submitted that the denial of re-examination of the witnesses

¶30

would cause prejudice to the petitioner.

¶31

PW1 is a child aged 13 years.

¶32

The petitioner relied on the following grounds in support of

¶33

the petition:

¶34

“(A) The allegations alleged against the petitioner are false and far away from the real facts. The alleged offences charged against the petitioner will not sustain either in law or in facts. The complaint by the defacto complainant is only meant to harass the petitioner due to his prior enmity and for political reasons. The FIR registered by the 2^nd respondent without any reasonable or legal grounds and absolutely it lacks any bona fides to implicate the petitioner in the above offences, it was only meant to implicate the petitioner unnecessarily in a criminal case for scaring and harassing him due to the prior enmity and also of some political reasons.

¶35

(B) The Annexure A and Annexure B filed before the court below for recalling the PW1 and PW2 for re examination of the witness for marking of the omissions and contradictions for proper and fair trial proceedings, if it is not allowed; the proceedings in the above case will affect the petitioner. It is further submits that the allegations made out in FIR and Charge Sheet is absolutely false and lacks any materials to prove the same hence the offences alleged will never attract if considering the FIS and 164 statement.” (sic)

¶36

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.2336 of 2023

¶38

This Court finds no convincing reason to recall the

¶39

witnesses. The Trial Court has recorded that there was lengthy and elaborate cross-examination of the child witness and other witness. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act cautions the Special Court

¶40

to ensure that the child is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court. The petitioner has failed to place any convincing materials that warrant recalling of the witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶41

The petition lacks merits and stands dismissed.

¶42

Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE

¶43

KAS

¶44

Crl.M.C.No.2336 of 2023

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2336/2023

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A . THE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 70/2023 IN SC NO. 592/2020, FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT Annexure B . THE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 91/2023 IN SC NO. 592/2020, FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT Annexure C THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CMP NO. 70/2023 AND CMP NO. 91/2023 IN SC NO. 592/2020, FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT DATED 28.2.2023

Aji P P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aji P P 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

Joel James Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Hashmi K.S Vs State of Kerala Rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Jincy M.P., D/O. Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Illyas Vs State of Kerala

Vyshak C v Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shiraz @ Shiraz Vs State of Kerala