DILEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2024-01-24. DILEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TH WEDNESDAY, THE 24 DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 4TH MAGHA, 1945 CRL. MC NO. 27 OF 2024 CRIME NO. 80/2001 OF Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 5002/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,ATTINGAL PETITIONER/S: DILEEP KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O SOMAN, RESIDING AT M. S. N. HOUSE, PULIMATH VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695612 BY ADVS. J. R. PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S. MUHAMMED SWADIQ O. MOHAMED BASIL KOYA THANGAL RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24. 01. 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ==================== Crl. M. C. No. 27 of 2024 ===================== th Dated this the 24 day of January, 2024 ORDER st Petitioner was the 1 accused in C. C. No.
404/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Since he had absconded, the case against him was split up and is now renumbered as C. C. No. 5002/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Attingal. Petitioner seeks the benefit of acquittal of co-accused. 2. Since the case against the petitioner was split up, the remaining accused, other than respondents 2 and 3 were tried and they were acquitted by judgment dated 30. 04. 2004. As far as the original accused 2 and 3 were concerned, they were tried in C. C. No. 264/2004 and by judgment dated 30. 01. 2010, those two accused were also acquitted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that benefit of acquittal of the remaining accused ought be extended to the petitioner. In support of his contentions he relied upon the observations made in two judgments acquitting accused Nos. 2 to 7 in the original case. 3. Sri. K. A.
Noushad, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that the acquittal of accused 2 to 7 was on the basis of the nature of evidence adduced therein and the said benefit cannot be st extended to the petitioner, who was the 1 accused. Specific observations made in Judgment in C. C. No. 404/2001, was also pointed out, indicating that the main offence is alleged against the petitioner and therefore, the acquittal of the remaining accused has no bearing, in the circumstances of the case. 4. On a perusal of the judgment in C. C. No. 404/2001, it is noticed that the said accused therein were acquitted on the basis of the st observation that MO1 sword was used by the 1 accused Dileep, who is the petitioner herein and that there are inconsistencies between the versions of some of the accused. Similarly in the subsequent prosecution of original accused Nos. 2 and 3, in C. C. No.
264/2004 it is seen observed by the learned Magistrate that CW 1 and 2 are not examined as they could not be procured, as they were abroad. CW3, CW5 and CW6 were declared hostile. It is also seen that the persons who registered the FIR as well as the Investigating Officer were not examined. 5. In this context it is necessary to refer to the observations of the learned Magistrate that even if the remaining witnesses are examined, that will not improve the prosecution case, as the independent witnesses had turned hostile. 6. On an appreciation of the above factual situation as well as the circumstances and the evidence adduced in the two criminal cases relating to original accused 2 to 7, it is noticed that the crime is of the year 2001 and the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Even the Investigating Officer and the person who recorded the FIR could not be produced for examination in the second case.
Most of the other witnesses are turned hostile. 7. Taking note of the above circumstances, it is evident that the very substratum of the prosecution case has eroded and no purpose would be achieved by continuing the proceedings. 8. Accordingly, I quash all proceedings in C. C. No. 5022/2021 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal. The Crl. M. C. is allowed as above. sd/ BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ APPENDIX OF CRL. MC 27/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT/ CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO: 80 OF 2001 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30. 01. 2010 IN C. C. NO: 264 OF 2004 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JFCMC-II ATTINGAL Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30. 04. 2004 IN JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ATTINGAL IN CC 404/2001
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.