On a revision petition challenging the acquittal of accused in a murder case, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court held that since witness depositions were destroyed and the incident occurred over 24 years ago, ordering a retrial would be preposterous and violate the right to a fair trial.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed.
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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945
CRL.REV.PET NO. 222 OF 2004
AGAINST SC 75/2002 OF I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS
COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
SOMAN
CHAKIRIKAD VALIYAPARAMBU, 13/2316, BALASOUDHAM, KOZHIKODE
BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.SUNIL SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1-4 & STATE:
S/O GOVINDAN, KALLUVALLI VEEDU, 12/407, NEAR PARAPURAM TEMPLE, BEEPOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE
ERANHIVAYAL VEEDUM, ARAKINAR, BEPOOR,KOZHIKODE
VENNAKKADU VEEDU, NEDUMPURAPARAMBU, BEPOOR, KOZHIKODE
-:2:-
Crl.R.P. No.222/04
5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.V.ANOOP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-:3:-
Crl.R.P. No.222/04
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Crl.R.P. No.222 of 2004
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2023
ORDER
The revision petitioner was the defacto complainant in Crime No.121 of 1999 of Beypore Police Station. After investigation, the final report was filed alleging offences punishable under section 307 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, apart from sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Cognizance was taken and after committal, the case was numbered as S.C. No.75 of 2002 on the files of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court, Kozhikode. By judgment dated 11.07.2003, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all four accused in the case. Aggrieved by the acquittal, this revision petition has been preferred by the defacto complainant.
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:4:-
and, after calling him from outside, threw an explosive substance on PW1 when he came out and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:5:-
called for. By letter dated 24.06.2016, the Principal Sub Judge, Kozhikode, informed that while preparing the records, the record clerk had noticed that the depositions of PW1 to PW10 had been destroyed without noticing the pendency of the appeal ( sic ). Since the records were urgently called for by the High Court, the available records were forwarded.
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:6:-
observed that the grounds of revision in the memorandum of criminal revision petition will show that the whole grounds are about the deposition of the material witnesses given in the trial court. It was observed as below: “ This means that the revision petitioner/the learned counsel had all the depositions in possession when the memorandum of revision was prepared. If the revision petitioner wants to prosecute the revision, let him produce the copies of the depositions of the material witnesses. ”
Crl.R.P. No.222/04
-:7:-
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:8:-
evidence in the case and, considering the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the revisional court, that too against an order of acquittal, interference even for the purpose of remand would not do justice to the facts of the case. The learned counsel, referring to the findings in the judgment of the Sessions Judge, submitted that the trial court had appreciated and considered the evidence of each and every witness and, after noticing the discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses, came to the conclusion that there was no proper identification of accused and hence the benefit of doubt must go in favour of respondents 1 to 4.
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:9:-
trial court's judgment is irregular and improper, the only remedy available would be to remand the case. However, in the instant case, the record of depositions of PW1 to PW10 and the documents that were marked in evidence were destroyed in 2009 itself. Even if the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner are accepted in their entirety, the only remedy available to this Court now is to remand it for a fresh trial. Even in such circumstances, the documents are not available. Further, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 26.08.1999. Almost 24 years have elapsed since the date of incident. To order a retrial at this distance of time would prejudice the accused as well as the prosecution.
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:10:-
from flaw and a Court of appeal may well have felt justified in disagreeing with its conclusion, but from this it does not follow that on revision by a private complainant, the High Court is entitled to reappraise the evidence for itself as if it is acting as a Court of appeal and then order a re-trial. It is unfortunate that a serious offence inspired by rivalry and jealousy in the matter of election to the office of village Mukhia, should go unpunished. But that can scarcely be a valid ground for ignoring or for not strictly following the law as enunciated by this Court.”
Crl.R.P. No.222/04
-:11:-
Crl.R.P. No.222/04 -:12:-
the merits in the revision. After a long lapse of time, i.e., nearly one and a half decades, we do not propose to confirm the order of the High Court with regard to remanding the appeal to the Sessions Court for the purpose of hearing the same once again.”
In the above circumstances, this criminal revision petition fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
vps
/True Copy/ PS to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction to order a retrial when witness depositions are destroyed and the incident occurred over two decades ago.
Whether the scope of revisional jurisdiction allows a private complainant to challenge an acquittal on merits without material evidence.
Whether ordering a retrial in a case delayed for nearly 24 years would cause prejudice violating the right to a fair trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo RamApplied¶59
AIR 1973 SC 2145 · Who else cites this
Ramu and Others v. JagannathApplied¶67
AIR 1994 SC 26 · Who else cites this
Soman
K.G.Santhosh
A.P.Habeeb
A.P.Beerkoya
V.Praakasan
State of Kerala
Bechu Kurian Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
