Satheesan vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

This appeal arises out of order in Crl.M.C.No.1731/2022, on the file of the Special Court for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as `the SC/ST Act' for convenience], Ernakulam (Sessions Court), in Crime No.447/2022, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 324, 326, 294(b) NS 506 of I.P.C as well as under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, by the accused. Accused No.1 is the appellant. Respondents are State of Kerala as well as the defacto complainant.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 25.06.2022 at about 6 p.m, the appellant/accused herein, who belongs to Ezhava community, assaulted the defacto complainant, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, using a wooden stick and thereby the defacto complainant sustained injuries over his right ear, back of head and forehead. The further allegation is that the appellant/accused criminally intimidated the defacto complainant with dire consequence. Further it is alleged that the appellant/accused humiliated the defacto complainant by hurling abusive words within public view. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

While impeaching Annexure 3 order passed by the learned Special Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire allegations are false and the defacto complainant herein attacked the accused and he sustained serious injuries. He has placed reliance on Annexure- 2 series produced in this regard. On perusal of Annexure 2, the same are receipts showing remittance of amount for urine test, x-ray and also purchase of medicine. Annexure 2(a) is the medical prescription issued from the Medical college, Ernakulam advising clavicle brace on right shoulder. Annexure-A2(b) is also medicine purchase bill.

Since the above documents do not suggest any injuries or history of assault by the defacto complainant, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, he was asked to justify the appellant's treatment on account of the injuries, if any, alleged to have sustained by the appellant, on the premise that the defacto complainant attacked the appellant. But the learned counsel miserably failed in this endeavour and he submitted that the documents do not suggest the said fact. Annexure 2 series would go to show that the appellant reached Medical College Hospital on the next day of occurrence and he was advised to have clavicle brace for some infirmities on the shoulder and the reason for such an advice could not be gathered from the above document. Therefore, the documents produced by the appellant would go to show that no injuries sustained to the appellant as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is to be inferred that the appellant reached the hospital on the next day of occurrence as a clever tactics to avoid arrest and to show that he also sustained injuries in the occurrence. This fact can be fortified by the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused was arrested on 27.06.2022, when he was at the hospital without any infirmities.

The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed grant of bail to the appellant specifically on 3 grounds. He would submit that very serious offences including offence under Section 326 of I.P.C and under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are alleged to be committed by the accused. It is submitted further that, on a previous occasion, exactly on 3.1.2013 also, the appellant attempted to do away the defacto complainant, and in that occurrence the defacto complainant sustained very serious injuries though he survived. It is submitted further that crime was registered in the said occurrence and the same culminated in S.C.No.422/2013 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha alleging commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC. On trial, the appellant was found guilty in the said case and he was convicted and sentenced for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1.25 lakh. When he filed appeal, viz. Crl.Appeal No.1208/2014, his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail by this Court. It is submitted further that while on bail as above, the appellant herein, who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, attacked the defacto complainant, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste community, on 25.6.2022 at about 6 p.m with intention to do away the defacto complainant. He submitted further that if the appellant is released on bail, he would make attempt to murder the defacto complainant again and therefore it is necessary to have custodial trial in this matter.

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also seriously opposed bail asserting the arguments tendered by the learned Public Prosecutor. He also submitted that if the appellant will be released on bail, the life of the defacto complainant will be in danger and therefore custodial trial is absolutely necessary. He submitted further that the defacto complainant filed a detailed counter narrating his grievance in detail. Further, it is submitted that the petition filed by the defacto complainant to cancel the bail granted in Crl.Appeal No.1209/2014 has been pending before this Court.

In the counter affidavit filed by the defacto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent in this matter, it has been stated that he sustained serious injuries including skull fracture and he underwent open surgery for the same and is under treatment. It is submitted that the appellant who was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha under Section 307 of IPC, attempted to do away the defacto complainant again while he was on bail. It is submitted that the defacto complainant is a coolie worker and he is not able to resist the highhanded activities of the appellant, who is having influence in police and politics. Therefore, he strongly opposed grant of bail.

In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that the accused, who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community at 6 p.m on 25.06.2022 attacked the defacto complainant, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste by using a wooden stick with intention to harass him. I have perused the prosecution records and the medical records to ascertain the truth of the allegation. It is noted that in this occurrence also, the defacto complainant sustained very serious head injuries viz., comminuted fracture right acromion scapula and wound ischemia and the defacto complainant was admitted in the hospital in a condition of LOC (loss of consciousness). Further the prosecution records would reveal that the appellant assaulted the defacto complainant and caused serious injuries and the prosecution allegation in this regard is on a strong plank. Thus it appears that the prosecution case is well made out in this matter and the appellant/accused, who has least respect to law after being convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C, while on bail granted by this Court on Crl.Appeal No.1208/2014, after suspending seven years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1.25 lakh, attacked the same defacto complainant with intention to harass him and caused very serious injuries. In such a case, grant of regular bail to him cannot be considered and the same would be fatal to the defacto complainant, as argued by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

In view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge and accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

It is held that the appellant is not liable to be released on bail, as discussed and he shall be tried keeping him in custody. Hence the learned Special Judge shall take endeavour to try the case as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this judgment.