SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Ker) 719

High Court of Kerala
V.K. MOHANAN, J.
Firoz & Others
Versus
State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Crl. A.No. 1099 of 2002
Decided on : 04-12-2013

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:P. Vijaya Bhanu, Sr. Advocate, P.M. Rafiq, Advocate.
For the Respondent: E.M. Abdul Khadir, Public Prosecutor.

The deliberate suppression of material evidence and facts, along with serious defects in the investigation, led to the court setting aside the finding and conviction, extending the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

Headnote:

SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 326, 427, 460 and 307 - The court found that the prosecution deliberately suppressed material facts and evidence, including material documents, creating serious doubt against the prosecution case. Due to serious defects in the investigation, the court set aside the finding and conviction, extending the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved an incident where the accused formed an unlawful assembly and trespassed into a house, causing injuries and damage to property. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed various offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution deliberately suppressed material facts and evidence, including material documents, creating serious doubt against the prosecution case. Due to serious defects in the investigation, the court set aside the finding and conviction, extending the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

Issues: The issues included the reliability of the evidence, the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), and the prosecution's failure to explain the delay and the suppression of material evidence and facts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in a prosecution for a serious offense, it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure a fair and proper investigation. The deliberate suppression of material evidence and facts, along with serious defects in the investigation, led to the court setting aside the finding and conviction, extending the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and acquitting the appellants of all charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by them was canceled, and they were set at liberty.

Judgment :

1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.11.2002 in S.C.No.64 of 1998 of the court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC), Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur at the instance of accused Nos.1,4,7 and 9 in the above sessions case since they are convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 143,147,148,452,324,326,427,460 and 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.8.1995 at 2.30 a.m., the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly to commit murder of PW2 (CW3) and others due to their enmity with PW2 (CW3), trespassed into the house occupied by PW2 (CW3) and others bearing door No.IX/136 of Kadappuram Panchayat by breaking the door of the house and at that time, the accused were armed with swords, iron rods etc. and PW2 (CW3) was beaten on his head by the second accused with iron rod. He was also beaten by the third accused with an iron rod on his right leg and accused Nos.4 and 5 had beaten at several parts of his body with iron rod and A1 had inflicted grievous injuries at the head of PW1 (CW1) with sword. PWs.2 and 3 (Cws.3 and 4) were beaten by accused Nos.4 and 5 with iron rods causing injuries to them also. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused has caused loss to the tune of Rupees One Thousand by damaging the door and tiles and thus, the accused altogether 11 in numbers have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,452,324,326,427,460 and 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.

3. After the incident at about 2.30 a.m., the injured viz., Pws.1,2 and 3 (Cws.1,3 and 4) were admitted at Tahani Hospital, Guruvayur for treatment and thus, the S.I. Of Police, Chavakkad Police Station, who is examined as PW10, reached the hospital and recorded Ext.P1 F.I.statement of PW1 at about 6 a.m. on 27.8.1995 on the basis of which PW10 registered Ext.P1(a) F.I.R. against accused Nos.1 to 11 and other ten identifiable persons.

4. On completing the investigation, a report was laid in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad based upon which C.P.No.12 of 1996 is instituted in that court. As accused Nos.6,8 and 11 have not appeared before the committal court, the case against them was split up and registered as C.P.No.6 of 1997. By order dated 19.4.1997 in C.P.No.12 of 1996, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thrissur with respect to accused Nos.1 to 5,7,9 and 10. On receipt of the records, S.C.No.64 of 1998 was instituted in the Sessions Court which is made over to the First Additional Assistant Sessions Court for trial and disposal. When the accused appeared before the said court, the learned Judge of the court of First Additional Assistant Sessions Court framed a charge against accused Nos.1 to 5,7,9 and 10 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147,148,452,324,326,427,460 and 307 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and when the said charge was read over and explained to the accused, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Thus, when the case was pending in that court, accused Nos.2 and 5 were absconded. Hence, the case against them was split up. Thus, the case against A1,A3,A4,A7, A9 and A10 proceeded during which the prosecution adduced its evidence by examining Pws.1 to 11 and by producing Exts.P1 to P13 documents. Mos.1 to 23 are identified as material objects. The accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and they have denied the offences and pleaded innocence. Thus, the case was heard by the learned Judge of the court of the First Additional Assistant Sessions Judge and when the case was adjourned for judgment, the third accused was absconded and hence, the case against him was split up. Thereafter, while the case was pending for judgment in that court, transferred to the present court viz., the court of Third Additional Sessions Judge (ADHOC), Fast Track Court No.I, Thrissur. Thus, the present t


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top