AMAL @ UNNI vs STATE OF KERALA

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.2909/2012 of Thodupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 read

with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner herein along with two other accused wrongfully restrained the de facto

complainant on 25.11.2012 at 1.30 p.m. and caused bodily injuries on the de facto complainant and another person. On the basis of the FIS laid,

crime was registered and after investigation final report was filed. Cognizance was taken as C.C. No.1566/2014 before the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, I, Thodupuzha. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 alone faced the trial, since the petitioner herein was absconding. After letting in the

prosecution evidence, the court below on an evaluation of all available inputs found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused

Nos. 1 and 2. Consequently, they were acquitted. The case against the petitioner was split up and is now pending as C.C. No.899/2017 of

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Thodupuzha.

The petitioner contended that in the light of acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2, on proper evaluation of the materials, the edifice on which the

entire prosecution case was build up has broken and there is no scope for a successful prosecution of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the

petitioner invited my attention to Annexure B judgment and the versions of the crucial witnesses produced as Annexures C and D. Paragraph 14 of

the judgment deals with the evaluation of evidence. The court after thorough evaluation of the evidence concluded that the evidence did not pin

point the role of the accused persons. It was held that the substantial evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 did not get its corroboration from the

testimonial output of the independent witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the charge alleged against the petitioner herein

is almost identical to that of the accused, who were acquitted. The court held that there was no medical evidence to show that PW 1 and PW 2

sustained bodily injuries.

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that Annexure B judgment was not under challenge in any other proceedings. Evidently,

Annexure B judgment has become final and conclusive. The court below on a proper evaluation of the materials had held that accused Nos. 1 and

2 are not guilty. Evidently, with this quality of evidence let in, a successful prosecution of the petitioner is not possible.

Having considered these facts, I feel that this is a fit case in which further prosecution of the petitioner herein is liable to be quashed to meet the

ends of justice. However, it is pertinent to note that the crime is of the year 2012. The petitioner voluntarily refrained from contesting the

proceedings leading to splitting up of the case. Evidently he has contributed to the delay in the judicial proceedings by his conduct. Hence, I am

inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only subject to payment of cost.

Accordingly, Crl.M.C. stands allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.899/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Thodupuha will

stand quashed on condition that the petitioner herein deposits a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the Kerala State Mediation and

Conciliation Committee within 15 days from today and file proof before this Court.