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

2016 Supreme(Ker) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.D. RAJAN, J.
Sabu E.K. & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State, Rep. by CBI, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. R.P. No. 1170 of 2015
Decided On : 31-03-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Sri. S. Rajeev, Sri. K.K. Dheerendra Krishnan, Sri. V. Vinay, Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, Sri. K. Rajeev
Sri. P. Chandrasekhara Pillai, C.B.I., Sri. Siraj Karoly, Sri. R. Parameswara Iyer, Sri. N. Suresh

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 226, 228 and 306 - Framing of charge - Tender of pardon to accomplice - Opening case for prosecution - When the accused appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused - Held, The tender of pardon to a person by a court under S.306 of the Code duly supported by the State is a judicial act - The beginning of the trial, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor relied need not be meticulously analysed - At that time, the probable defence put forward by the accused is also not to be considered - While Magistrate is performing the act of pardon, he is bound to consider the consequences of grant of pardon taking into consideration, the policy of the State and the culpability of the person seeking pardon

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Secs.397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short) by the 6th and 5th accused in S.C. No. 917 of 2012 of the Special Court (for the trial of CBI cases) Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Court' for short). Accused nos.1 to 3 were charge sheeted by the Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Secs.323, 331, 348 and 302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. A1 to A3 and A5 to A7 were charge sheeted under Sec.120B read with Sec.167, 201, 466, 477 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. A4 was discharged by the Special Court, CBI cases. The accused were Police officers in the Fort Police station, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 27.09.2005 at 2.00 p.m., one Uadayakumar and Suresh Kumar alias Mani were taken into illegal custody from Sreekandeswaram Park, Thiruvananthapuram by the 1st accused (Jithakumar) and 2nd accused (Sreekumar). Subsequently, both of them were taken to Fort Police station. In order to extort confession from Udayakumar they took him into the office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Fort Police station and wrongfully confined them without making any entries in the records of the Fort Police station and without registering any crime. Subsequently, Udayakumar was put on a wooden bench inside the room made to lie on it and his both hands tied with a towel (thorth) and A2 (Sreekumar) beat on the soles of his feet using a bamboo cane and enquired about the money found in his possession when he was caught from Sreekandeswaram park. The 3rd accused (Soman) also joined the interrogation in order to extort confession from Udayakumar. A3 held the head of Udayakumar forcefully, in the meantime A1 and A2 took a long GI pipe and started to knead it forcefully on the thighs of Udayakumar repeatedly, which resulted in causing grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries on 27.09.2005 at night. After the death of Udayakumar, on 27.09.2005, A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 entered into a criminal conspiracy, caused evidence of the offence to disappear and registered a false crime as Crime No.703 of 2005 under Sec.41(1)(d) and Sec.102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Suresh Kumar and Udayakumar as A1 and A2, which was later referred by CBCID. They also registered another crime No.704 of 2005 under Sec.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the death of Udayakumar and caused disappearance of articles such as cane, iron rod and towel (Thorth). The investigation was initially conducted by the Narcotic Cell and thereafter CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram. After completing investigation, CBCID filed a final report in Crime No.704 of 2005 against A1 to A3 under Secs.323, 331, 348 and 302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was taken on file as S.C. No. 1542 of 2006. Subsequently, it is made over to Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III) Thiruvananthapuram.

3. During trial, most of the witnesses had turned hostile and it was revealed that the official witnesses were trying to help the accused/police officials. In such a situation, the Special Public Prosecutor, filed Crl. M.P. No.1964 of 2007 before the Additional Sessions Court seeking permission for further investigation under Sec.173(8) of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed Crl.M.P. No.1964 of 2007 and directed further investigation. At the same time, J. Prabavathy Amma (R5), the mother of the deceased approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.24258 of 2007 for conducting investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI for short) which was allowed by this Court. In the circumstance, CBI re-registered Crime No. 704 of 2005 as R.C. No. 10/S/2007/CBI/SCB/CHE. After completing investigation, they filed final report against six persons namely-Jithakumar (A1), Sreekumar (A2), Soman (A3), Mohanan (A4), Ajithku

















































































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