Quashed

Shefeek v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2024Crl.MC/1521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners/accused who had absconded during trial, relying on the acquittal of co-accused due to fatal evidentiary flaws, specifically a scene mahazar prepared six hours post-incident and lack of identification by witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.173/2023 arising out of Crime No.1007/2011 are hereby quashed.

Shefeek Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1521 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.1007/2011 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
 IN CC NO.173 OF 2023 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

¶7

CLASS -II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 3, 4 & 8:

¶9

1SHEFEEK
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O THAJUDEEN,
SHANAVAS MANZIL, MANJALOOR MURI,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 689695

¶10

2AMEER
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O ABDUL MAJEED,
AMEER MANZIL, MANJALOOR MURI,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 689695

¶11

3SIJI
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O SHEELA S,
KOKKOTTU VEEDU, MANJALOOR MURI,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 689695

¶12

BY ADVS.
M.T.SURESHKUMAR
MANJUSHA K
SREELAKSHMI SABU

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.1521 of 2024

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶16

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

¶17

BY ADV.
ASHI.M.C
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

-:3:-

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.1521 of 2024

¶21

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶22

--------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1521 of 2024

¶23

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners were accused Nos. 3, 4 and 8 in C.C.No.499/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Punalur. As many as eleven persons were arrayed as accused in Crime No.1007/2011 of Pathanapuram Police Station. However, during trial, petitioners had absconded, and therefore, the case against them was split up and the remaining accused were tried. By judgment dated 05.04.2023, all accused except the petitioners were acquitted. Petitioners are now being prosecuted in C.C.No.173/2023 before the same court. Through this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, they seek the benefit of acquittal of the co-accused in C.C.No.499/2013.

¶26

According to the prosecution, on 20.09.2011, eleven accused, who were SFI workers had, in prosecution of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and restrained a KSRTC bus going to Pathanamthitta, and broke the front right side headlight of the bus using a stick, causing a loss of Rs.1,000/- and also prevented CW1 from discharging his duty and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.1521 of 2024

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

I have heard Sri. M.T.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ashi.M.C, the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

On a perusal of the judgment of acquittal of all the accused other than the petitioners, it is noticed that the learned Magistrate had observed that the scene mahazar in the case was prepared six hours prior to the incident and also that the driver and the conductor of the bus had not specifically stated the names of any of the accused nor were they able to identify the accused who were on trial. It was also noticed that no broken glass pieces of the headlight of the bus were recovered during investigation. Even the Inspector of the KSRTC Depot who had received the bus had not stated anything about the condition of the vehicle when it was received by him.

¶31

Considering the nature of allegations, the above findings are crucial. In an incident in which the scene mahazar was prepared six hours prior to the incident, as observed by the learned Magistrate, I am convinced that the very substratum of the prosecution case has been destroyed and no purpose would be achieved by continuing the prosecution. Even in the trial against the petitioners, the finding regarding the scene mahazar will stare at the face of the prosecution. Therefore, this is a fit case where the prosecution against the petitioners can be quashed on the basis of the acquittal of the co-accused.

¶32

Crl.M.C.No.1521 of 2024

¶33

Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.173/203 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Punalur, arising out of Crime No.1007/2011 of Pathanapuram Police Station, is hereby quashed.

¶34

Criminal miscellaneous case is allowed as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶37

Jka/21.05.24

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.1521 of 2024

¶39

-:6:-

¶40

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1521/2024

¶41

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶42

Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-4-2023
IN CC NO. 499 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II
(FOREST OFFENCES) PUNALUR

¶43

Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 1007 OF 2011
OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 20-9-
2011
Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC NO.
811 OF 2011 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -III, PUNALUR DATED
6-11-2011
Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW1
Annexure A5TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW2
Annexure A6TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW3
Annexure A7TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW4
Annexure A8TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW7
Annexure A9TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW5
Annexure A10TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZER
Annexure A11TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION GIVEN BY PW6

Shefeek v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shefeek 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

Kuriakose P.X Vs State of Kerala

James Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Chandran, Vs Sruthiraj B

Bharath Lajhna Multistate Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Bharath Lajhna Multistate Housing Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala