Dismissed

K.Prahladan v. Babu

Kerala HC29 May 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/1035/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court in CRL.R.P. No. 1035 of 2004 dismissed a revision petition challenging an order of acquittal. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and found no merit in interfering with the Sessions Court's finding.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of acquittal affirmed.

K.Prahladan Vs Babu — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1035 OF 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTSC 48/1997 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT

¶7

(ADHOC)-II, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶9

K.PRAHLADAN,
MANGATTETHU HOUSE

¶10

ELIPPAKKULAM.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 BABU, HOUSE NO.86-B, METTUR PALAYAM ROAD, THODIYALLOOR, COIMBATORE VILLAGE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

¶14

2 GOPALAKRISHNAN DOOR.NO.7 NARAYANA SWAMI LAYOUT, RETHINAPURI, COIMBATORE-27

¶15

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶17

ON 29.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1035 OF 2004

¶19

¶20

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶21

Crl.R.P. No.1035 of 2004

¶22

Dated this the 29^th day of May, 2023

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in S.C. No.48/1997 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta. The aforesaid case arose from Crime No.60/1994 of Kodumon Police Station. Having noticed an offence triable exclusively by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court.

¶25

According to the prosecution on 24-06-1994, the accused nine in number, had, pursuant to their intention to commit theft of a private bus by the name ‘Seetha’ bearing Registration No.KRP 6611, forcibly caught hold of the neck of PW-14 while another accused entered the drivers seat and drove the vehicle thereafter when the vehicle was stopped the accused threatened the passengers with iron rods and other dangerous weapons and drove the passengers out of the vehicle. In the attempt to take away the vehicle, the 1^st accused assaulted PW 14 with an iron rod while the 2^nd accused assaulted PW-14 on his back and inflicted serious injuries. The accused also assaulted the crew of the bus with iron rods and thereby committed the offence under Section 395 of IPC.

¶26

¶27

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1035 OF 2004

¶28

In order to prove the prosecution case they examined PW-1 to PW-19 and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P9, apart from marking material objects MO’s 1 to 3. After analysing the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and on that basis acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the order of the acquittal, this revision petition is preferred by the defacto complainant. Significantly, the State has not preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶29

Sri.B.Krishnamani and Adv.Thanuja M.S., the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the order of the acquittal of the accused by the impugned judgment is totally erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW-14 was practically ignored by the learned Sessions Judge while arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel asserted that PW-1 had spoken with clarity on the incident that occurred on 24-06-1994 and that there was no reason whatsoever to doubt the said evidence. The learned counsel also asserted that on a perusal of the evidence of PW-14 to PW-17, it could be seen that there were no contradictions in their evidence, and therefore the findings to the contrary by the learned Sessions Judge are without reference to the depositions or even the circumstances of the case. Adv.Thanuja M.S, in support of

¶30

¶31

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1035 OF 2004

¶32

the contentions advanced by Adv.B.Krishnamani, further submitted that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses are only natural, indicating that the deposition is true as human beings are prone to perceive things differently. Further, such minor discrepancies were given undue importance by the learned Sessions Judge to acquit the accused. In such circumstances, the order of the acquittal is liable to be reversed and the matter proceeded with in accordance with law; contended the learned counsel.

¶33

I have heard, the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶34

Even though notice to respondents 1 and 2 had been issued, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶35

It is apposite at this juncture to bear-in-mind the nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court in the present case. In a Criminal revision against an order of acquittal, the scope of interference is very limited. As held by the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court merely because a different view could be adopted by the revisional court, the same is not a ground to interfere, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such an interference.

¶36

Bearing-in-mind, the aforesaid principles and considering the nature of evidence adduced, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶37

¶38

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1035 OF 2004

¶39

The prosecution was not able to produce the document which allegedly conferred exclusive possession of the bus on PW-14. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case diary reveals that the original document of title of the bus was produced in another case, there is no receipt/acknowledgment or document of a similar nature produced before the court to arrive at the conclusion that the documents of title of the vehicle were produced in another case. The finding regarding the failure of the prosecution to prove the right of PW-14 to exclusive possession or ownership of the vehicle therefore cannot be said to be perverse or improper.

¶40

The evidence of PW-15 who was the conductor of the bus refer to the incidents that occurred on 24-06-1994 and commences with the statement that he was not employed in the bus in the year 1994. The said deposition strike at in the root of subsequent averments and therefore no reliability can be accorded to the statement of PW-15 regarding the incident that transpired on the date of offence. Further, PW-16 and PW-17 have also spoken contradictory to the prosecution case. In this context, it is relevant to mention that even though the incident is alleged to have occurred at 5:30 pm on 24-06-1994, curiously the FIR was registered only at 8:30 pm. The delayed registration of the crime assumes significance in the light of the prosecution case that the accused were

¶41

¶42

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1035 OF 2004

¶43

apprehended almost immediately by the police after a chase of the vehicle. Apart from the above PW-18 in his deposition had observed that the witnesses were not questioned after the recovery of MO's 1 to 3. On an analysis of the evidence, this court cannot find fault with the finding of the learned Session Judge that the prosecution has only been able to create suspicion and since suspicion cannot take the place of proof, the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

¶44

The learned Session Judge had meticulously considered the various depositions including those of PW-1 to PW-4 and concluded that prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the offence committed by the accused.

¶45

In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the revisional jurisdiction ought to be exercised to interfere with the finding of acquittal of the accused, that too, at this distance of time.

¶46

In the above circumstances, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition, and it is dismissed.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

AJM

K.Prahladan v. Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Prahladan v. Babu

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

Shafeeque Vs State of Kerala

Umaiba Vs Abdul Nazeer @ Rasheed

Liju Vs State of Kerala

K.v.George Vs State of Kerala

Muralledharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

P. Aboobacker Haji Vs State of Kerala