Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Bhaskaran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) challenging the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.289/2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery, arising from the judgment in C.C.No.420/2001 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur. The revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the concurrent verdicts under challenge and the points argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.
3. The parties in this revision petition will be referred hereafter as 'prosecution' and 'accused' for easy reference.
4. As per the judgment dated 29.11.2016 in C.C.No.420/2001, the learned Magistrate, after trying accused Nos.1 to 4 jointly, found that they were guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 427 and 452 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC' hereinafter) and accordingly, they were sentenced as under;
The conviction of accused based on reliable testimonies of injured witnesses is valid, and the absence of independent witnesses does not undermine the prosecution's case.
The court affirmed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised before the conclusion of trial and sentencing, allowing for the summoning of additional accused based on evidence.
Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - When strong and cogent evidence comes against a person before the Court and such power should not be exercised in a casual a....
The court established that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., strong and cogent evidence is necessary to summon an additional accused, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient.
The court held that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with strong evidence and cannot be invoked after the trial of co-accused has concluded.
Procedural lapses in recording victim statements do not invalidate prosecution if evidence sufficiently proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Procedural lapses in the recording of victim statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case if sufficient evidence independently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
