Nishad, Aged 28 Years vs State Of Kerala

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.733 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.716 of 2009 of the Kayamkulam Police Station. In the said case, the petitioner along with 12 others were proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506(ii) r/w. Section 149 of the IPC and Section 7(b) r/w. Section 27(ii) of the Arms Act.

The investigation in the aforesaid crime was completed and final report was laid before the learned Magistrate. Out of 13 persons named in the final report, the petitioner was the 6th accused. The case was committed to the Court of Session and was originally numbered as S.C.No.408 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 were available for trial and they were proceeded with by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. By Annexure-2 judgment dated 25.07.2018, they were found not guilty and were acquitted of all charges. Pursuant to the same, it appears that accused Nos.4 and 8 and accused Nos.7 and 9 approached this Court and by Annexures-3 and 4 orders, the proceedings against them were quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the acquittal of accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 and the quashment of the proceedings as against accused Nos.4, 7, 8 and 9, the continuance of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLJ 349], Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 336], Jalalu Rajan and Anr. v. State of Kerala [2013 KHC 177] and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 812] to substantiate his contention.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through Annexure-1 final report as well as Annexure-2 judgment of acquittal rendered by the court below. It is borne out from Annexure-2 that the de facto complainant and the other witnesses have turned hostile and there was no evidence to connect the accused with the case. As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), though the reasoning of the judgment contained or appreciation of evidence in the case of a co-accused therein are not grounds to attract any relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case where the substratum of the case is lost is an exception to the above rule.

I am of the firm view that no purpose is going to be served by directing the petitioner to face the trial at this stage. It can only be a futile exercise and will only serve to waste precious judicial time which can be used for more productive work. The prospects of conviction is extremely bleak as no evidence of worth could be adduced by the prosecution during the previous trial. This Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-1 final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto against the petitioner now pending as S.C.No.733 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Mavelikkara, are quashed.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.NO.408/2011.

ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN

CRL.M.C.NO.7601/2018.

ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO.380/19.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: