Point of Law : Section 223 Cr.P.C. mandates that persons accused of principal offences in course of same transaction and persons accused of participating in conspiracy to commit offences are to be charged and tried together.

ORDER :

The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is as follows:-

“For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to defer all proceedings in S.C.No.461/2022 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara, arising out of Crime No.897/2021 of Alappuzha South Police Station, until further investigation is completed and supplementary final report in the said crime, as against petitioners/accused 16 to 32, in the interests of justice.” (sic)

The petitioners are accused Nos.16 to 32 in Crime No.897/2021 of South Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged against the petitioners and the other accused are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 449, 324, 326, 341, 354, 506, 427, 118, 120B, 201, 212, 109 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners and the other accused (A1 to A35), who are activists of the Socialist Democratic Party of India/Popular Front of India (SDPI/PFI), maintained political enmity towards Bharatiya Janata Party – Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (BJPRSS) activists, as one of their members named Shan was hacked to death by the activists of BJP/RSS on 18.12.2021. In retaliation to the said murder, accused Nos.1 to 35 hatched a criminal conspiracy at the residence of accused No.14 at Ambalakulangara and nearby places and also at the PFI District Committee Office, Alappuzha. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, on 19.12.2021 at 6.30 hours, accused Nos.1 to 12 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, knowing that they were members of the such assembly and committed rioting armed with deadly weapons like hatchets, hammers, and sword sticks and trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, entered the hall room and destroyed the movables placed there. On hearing the commotion, the son of the defacto complainant Sri.Renjith Sreenivasan came there, and then the accused attacked him with hammer, hatchet, and sword sticks causing grave injuries on the vital parts of his body and leading to his death.

3. Based on the first information statement given by the defacto complainant, the aforesaid crime was registered. The Dy.SP, Alappuzha, conducted the investigation and submitted the final report against accused Nos.1 to 15 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Alapppuzha. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. The case was taken on the file of the Court as Sessions Case No.461/2022. Thereafter, pursuant to the orders of this Court in Tr.P. (Crl.)No.22/2022, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara.

4. The Investigating Officer has stated in the final report submitted against accused Nos.1 to 15 that a “split-charge” would be submitted against accused Nos.16 to 35, who had allegedly participated in the conspiracy which led to the murder of Sri.Renjith Sreenivasan. The challenge of the petitioners, who are accused Nos.16 to 32 in the crime, is that submission of the chargesheet against accused Nos.1 to 15 alone reserving the liberty to submit a “split-charge” against the rest of the accused is illegal. The petitioners contend that they could have been jointly tried along with the accused, who were sent for trial.

5. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the defacto complainant, and Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned Additional Director General of Prosecutions.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar submitted that “split-charge” is alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that sending accused Nos.1 to 15 alone for trial keeping the final report against the remaining accused to be submitted later in the nomenclature ‘split-charge’ is illegal, and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel contended that