Allowed

Preetham K @ Pramod v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2023Crl.MC/2668/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner after acquittal of co-accused. The court held that the substratum of the case was lost due to hostile evidence and unfit victim testimony, making trial a futile exercise under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the final report and all subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioner in S.C.No.144 of 2023.

Preetham K @ Pramod Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
WEDNESDAY,THE12THDAYOFJULY2023/21STASHADHA,1945
CRL.MCNO.2668OF2023

¶3

AGAINSTTHEORDERINSCNO.144/2023OFADDITIONALDISTRICT
COURT&SESSIONSCOURT-II,KASARAGOD/IIADDITIONALMACT,
KASARAGODE

¶4

PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED :-

¶5

PREETHAMK@PRAMOD,AGED32YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVANK,RESIDINGATMAHIMAQUARTERS,
MADHURVILLAGE,KASARAGODDISTRICT.,PIN-671124

¶6

BYADVS.
T.MADHU
C.R.SARADAMANI
SHAHIDAZEEZ
RENJISHS.MENON

¶7

RESPONDENTS/STATE:-

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶9

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671123

¶10

BY SRI.M.R.PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
12.07.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶12

CRL.MCNO.2668OF2023

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.144 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kasaragod. In the aforesaid, he is the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 325, 308, and 427 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No 172 of 2010 of the Vidya Nagar Police Station.

¶16

The prosecution allegation is that on 27.10.2010, at about 4:45

¶17

p.m., the accused, seven in number, armed with weapons, wrongfully restrained the informant, and attacked them with weapons causing injuries.

¶18

The petitioner, who was the first accused in the final report, was not available for trial. The case proceeded against the accused Nos.2 to 7. By judgment dated 18/10/2013 in S.C No. 446 of 2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, who faced the trial of all charges under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. for want of evidence.

¶19

After the acquittal of the co-accused, the petitioner surrendered

¶20

before the learned Sessions Judge, and the case is pending as aforesaid.

¶21

This petition is filed on the basis of the acquittal of the

¶22

CRL.MCNO.2668OF2023

¶23

¶24

co-accused, seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground that the substratum of the case against the petitioner has been shattered.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the decisions of this Court in Moosa V Sub Inspector of Police¹ , Abbas T.K. V State of Kerala² , Jalalu Rajan and Anr V State of Kerala³ and Ashraf Kancheriyil V State of Kerala⁴ would submit that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would serve no purpose.

¶27

I have gone through the charge sheet (Annexure A1) and the judgment of acquittal (Annexure A3) rendered by the lower court. The occurrence witness had turned hostile and the evidence of the victim was found unfit to be believed. After analyzing the evidence, the trial court found that the prosecution's case was suspicious and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As held by this court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police⁵ , although the reasoning of the judgment or the appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein is not grounds to grant any relief

¶28

1 2006 (1) KLJ 349

¶29

2 2013 KHC 336

¶30

3 2013 KHC 177

¶31

4 2011 (2) KHC 812

¶32

5 2006 (1) KLT 552

¶33

¶34

CRL.MCNO.2668OF2023

¶35

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an exception to this rule exists when the substratum of the case is lost.

¶36

I am firmly of the view that there is no point in directing the petitioner to face trial at this stage. It would be a futile exercise that would only serve to waste precious judicial time, which could be better spent on more productive matters. The prospects of conviction are extremely slim, as the prosecution was unable to produce any plausible evidence during the previous trial. This court would be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

¶37

Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No. 172/2010 of the Vidyanagar Police station and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner, now pending as S.C.No.144 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kasargod, are quashed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶40

SMA

¶41

CRL.MCNO.2668OF2023

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2668/2023

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-

¶45

Annexure-A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 27/10/2010 IN CRIME NO.172/2010 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION; KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶46

Annexure-A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 17/12/2010 IN CRIME NO.172/2010 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION; KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶47

Annexure-A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2013 IN S.C.NO.446/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSION'S COURT-II, KASARAGOD.

Preetham K @ Pramod v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetham K @ Pramod 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

Anas .S Vs the State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Vs Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sunny, Vs State of Kerala

Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Appunni @ Appu, Vs State of Kerala

Shaijan Joseph Vs State of Kerala