Satheesh vs State Of Kerala - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1472

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1472

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA AND AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Satheesh And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala And Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 45 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No(S).3067 of 2024)
Decided on : 03-01-2025

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, Section 319 - Criminal procedure - Second respondent's complaints did not name the appellants, nor did his examination-in-chief. The circumstances surrounding filing complaints did not justify the naming of appellants later - High Court's decision to proceed with application under Section 319 was set aside as unjustified. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Criminal Appeals - Appeal allowed as the factual basis for implicating appellants was insufficient to warrant inclusion under Section 319. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The second respondent filed multiple complaints without naming the appellants until his examination-in-chief, undermining the justification for invoking Section 319 of the Cr.PC.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the invocation of Section 319 unjustified due to lack of prior identification of the appellants in complaints or statements.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the sufficiency of evidence to justify naming appellants based on later statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that without prior identification or knowledge of the appellants from complaints or statements, the inclusion under Section 319 was unwarranted.

Result: The appeal was allowed and the previous orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. insufficient evidence for appellants' involvement. (Para 3)
2. judgment and order set aside. (Para 4)
3. appeal allowed. (Para 5)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Even according to the case of the second respondent, he filed multiple complaints complaining about the incident in respect of which the offence has been registered. On a query made by this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent accepted that neither in any of the complaints nor in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.PC"), the second respondent has even named the appellants. For the first time in his examination-in-chief before the Court, the second respondent has ascribed a role to the appellants. He has not stated in the examination-in-chief that when the complaints were filed by him, he was not aware of the involvement of the appellants. In view of this factual situation, the Court was not justified in allowing the application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC.

4. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 30th January, 2024 passed by the High Court and the order dated 3rd January, 2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby set aside and the application under Section 319 of the Cr.PC made by the first respondent stands dismissed.

5. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document