IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J.
Jithin P., S/o. Uthaman - Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala (SHO Cherupuzha Police Station, Kannur) Represented by Public Prosecutor & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. MC Nos. 6346 & 5909 of 2022
Decided On : 24-05-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 r/w Section 3(a), Section 6 r/w Section 5(l), Section 12 r/w Sections 11(iv), 11(v) and 11(vi) - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67-B - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) - Offences of house-trespass, rape, aggravated penetrative sexual assault - Petitioner seeks to quash Final Report - Whether series of acts are so connected together to be tried at one trial - Section 220 Cr.P.C. relates to joinder of charges of offences committed by same person. (Para 10)
Finding of the Court :
Core elements of the proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, unity and continuity of action, and commonality of purpose or design, which are of relevant consideration, are not in favour of a joint trial based on a joint charge. Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that acts alleged formed the same transaction.
Result : Crl.M.C.s dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.547 of 2021 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery and S.C.No.595 of 2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thalassery.
2. In S.C.No.595 of 2021, the petitioner faces charges under Sections 450 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, Section 4 r/w Section 3(a), Section 6 r/w Section 5(l), Section 12 r/w Sections 11(iv), 11(v) and 11(vi) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act).
3. In S.C. No. 547 of 2021, he faces charges under Section 305 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. In Crl.M.C.No.6346 of 2022, the petitioner seeks to quash the Final Report in S.C.No.595 of 2021. The petitioner seeks to quash the Final Report in S.C.No.547 of 2021 in Crl.M.C.No.5909 of 2022. The petitioner alternatively prayed for directing the Investigating Officer concerned to take back the Final Report filed in S.C.No.547 of 2021 and to submit before the Special Court for POCSO Act cases for trying both matters together.
5. On 09.06.2021 at 10.50hrs, a girl aged 17 years was found hanging on the ceiling fan of the bedroom of her family house. The SHO, Cherupuzha Police Station, registered crime No.111/2021 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. On 09.06.2021 itself, based on the information that the petitioner abetted the minor girl to commit suicide, the Investigating Officer altered the penal provisions in Crime No.111/2021 as Section 305 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA) Act. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the girl at Medical College, Pariyaram, reported that the girl was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault when she was below 17 years old. On 16.06.2021, based on the information that the girl was subjected to aggravated penertrative sexual assault, Cherupuzha Police registered Crime No.114 of 2021 under Section 376(2) of IPC and Sec.4 r/w Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused in both crimes.
6. In Crime No.111/2021, the Police completed the investigation and submitted the final report before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. In Crime No.114/2021, final report was submitted before the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thalassery.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the acts alleged constitute the same transaction; therefore, the petitioner should have been charged and tried at one trial for those offences. It is submitted that the trial of these two cases by two different Courts would cause prejudice to the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that filing two separate charge sheets permitting two trials is against the provisions of Section 220 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on State of Karnataka v. M. Balakrishna [1980 CRL. L.J. 1145] in support of his contentions.
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in the given facts, the alleged acts do not form the same transaction, whereas they are distinct and different. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also supported the contentions of the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. For the convenience of analysis, Section 220 Cr.P.C. is extracted below:-
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of
Point of law : Scope of Section 220 Cr.P.C. by constructing the meaning of expression “same transaction”.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges for distinct offenses must be tried separately unless they fall within the exceptions provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. The con....
If more offences than one are committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, then the accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence....
(1) Joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion – Joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at outset of proceedings and for cogent reasons.(2) Mere discovery of error, irregularity or omis....
Joint trials are acceptable for closely related offences, but accused must demonstrate prejudice due to any procedural irregularities for a trial to be invalidated.
Territorial jurisdiction of court – No formula of universal application could be enunciated for determining as to whether two or more acts constitute same transaction – Core elements like proximity o....
Cross-cases arising from similar incidents should be tried simultaneously to prevent conflicting judgments, and the POCSO Court can adjudicate related offences under different statutes.
The court ruled that trials may be conducted together under Section 223 Cr.P.C. but should remain separate if the accused differ between a police report and a complaint case, to avoid prejudice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.